School as Community Final Draft 1 2

Running Head: SCHOOL AS COMMUNITY: THE RE-ARTICULATION OF COMMUNITY

School as Community: The Re-Articulation of Community

1


Abstract

This study utilizes a mixed methods design to explore the efforts

of a principal in a large comprehensive urban high school to re-

articulate school as community. Employing teacher data taken from

an annual school based survey, along with principal and teacher

interviews and descriptive field notes, this study examines how

the teachers interpreted the principal's role in building

community(ies). The findings revealed that “school as community”

is a long term, deliberate process that addresses the following

components: Learning to Lead, Trusting in Time, Making the

Connections, and Managing Change.

2


School as Community: The Re-Articulation of Community

Community is a complex phenomenon. On the one hand, the

notion of community evokes feelings of trust, safety, love, and

fellowship. In other contexts, a community may be depicted as

pathological when its members are wrought by violence, continuous

cycles of poverty, and racism (Limperopulos, 2014). As an

ideological concept, the term community is fundamental to fields

such as sociology and ecology. Interestingly, as we research

3


schools as communities, what is clear not only in education, but

also in sociology and ecology is that the word "community" has no

distinct definition (Bender, 1978). Its meanings vary by context

and purposes. Dewey (1897) repeatedly argued that schooling must

be the practice of community for it is within schools where one

learns how to participate in the larger society. Sergiovanni

(1996) observed that if schools were to function as communities

then school leaders must also serve as moral agents and should

adapt their practices and theories to meet the needs of their

respective school sites. Hence, his argument was to replace

"school as an organization" with “school as community”

(Sergiovanni, 1994).

Much of the ambiguity surrounding the word community, in

relation to schools, comes from the fact that the term is often

used in two distinct ways: in the first, the school itself is a

community; and in the second, the school's engagement with

external communities is deemed the practice of community. At

times, it is not clear which of these contexts is the

researchers’ point of reference. Moreover, with respect to the

4


former, many scholars neglect to distinguish between community as

measured by climate relationships and community as measured by

cultural dynamics (Wonycott & Author, 1997). And, as with so

many terms appropriated by academics, the lack of neither a

contextual nor educative definition of community in the context

of schools confuses readers and may diminish any significance

reported by the researchers. The following quote by Bauer and

Brazer (2012) illustrates this frustration:

We cringe when someone tells us that their school `does

professional learning community' - a professional learning

community is something your school becomes, not something you

or a few people on a team do (p. 280)

With respect to the second context of community, external

relationships, it is both unfortunate and factual that through

structural and programmatic designs, many public schools have

severed ties with outside members (Merz & Furman, 1997). To

date, the expansion of citywide, magnet, and charter schools have

served to further erode the bridges between public schools and

communities (Ravitch, 2013) that were paradoxically essential in

5


past eras.

Literature Review

The emphasis on schools as communities is a historical fact.

There is overwhelming evidence that parental involvement was a

hallmark of U.S. public education for centuries (Jeynes, 2014).

In fact, beginning with federal policies (see the General Welfare

Clause of the U.S. Constitution) to current practices of local

control, from the Land Ordinance of 1785 to past and recent state

funding mechanisms, every aspect of public education is

inextricably linked to the needs of the local community. This

truth was particularly evident at the turn of the 20th century

when schools and communities modeled what we now refer to as

"wraparound" services. At the forefront of this movement were

renowned social reformers such as Jane Addams, John Dewey, Jacob

Riis, and urban planner Clarence Perry.

In the second decade of the 20th century Angelo Patri wrote

about his efforts in creating the first Parent Teacher

Association in New York City (Patri, 1917). In the 30s and 40s,

one of the hallmarks of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New

6


Deal was the establishment of community schools in Appalachia

under the principal leadership of Elsie Clapp, a disciple and

colleague of John Dewey (Stack, 2004). Additionally, the Mott

Foundation, under the leadership of Charles Manley and Charles

Steward Mott, focused their efforts on school as community in

Flint, Michigan, before expanding across the U.S. The model they

promoted centered on the principles of adult learning and the

utilization of schools as a community resource, including

extended days and hours. Manley and Mott also advocated for the

coordination of social service agencies with local schools, as

well as parental involvement, business partnerships, and the

active engagement of the local citizenry in public education.

Ernst Melby translated many of these ideas into K - 12

educational programs

(http://www.coe.fau.edu/CentersAndPrograms/csmcc/History.aspx).

While many local communities still maintain the principles

of the two former national associations, the National Association

for Community Education (NACE) and the National Center for

Community Education (NCCE), today, the Coalition for Community

7


Schools

(http://www.communityschools.org/aboutschools/national_models.asp

x) and the National Center for Community Schools under the

auspices of the Children's Aid Society

(http://nationalcenterforcommunityschools.childrensaidsociety.org

/node) work to keep the programs and ideals of school as

community alive.

In this case study we apply the lessons taught by Patri,

Dewey, Clapp and Melby as we explore the postmodern conditions,

which make school as community elusive and problematic (Author,

2002). That is, from year to year, the demographic, socio-

cultural and staffing dynamics, including leadership in schools,

are subject to change rendering last year's programs, priorities

and vision vulnerable to adjustments and modifications. Larson

and Ovando (2001) borrowed the chronological framework for

understanding communities from the sociologist Robert Havighurst.

His typology locates community somewhere between "laisssez-faire

pluralism" and "constructive pluralism." The first is grounded in

balancing ancestral heritage with the core values of the U.S. The

8


second denotes how the federal government actively promoted

diversity for the purposes of bringing non-Whites into the

mainstream of American life. Both of these stages never erased

the earlier "melting pot" and "salad bowl" metaphors used by both

political scientists and sociologists.

Further, according the Larson and Ovando (2001) we are also

experiencing a backlash or an "anti-constructive pluralism" as

evident in the recent gridlock in Washington, D.C. and the

obstructionism in passing progressive immigration reform.

Educators today find themselves having to negotiate community

without clear guidelines set forth by federal, state, and

district policies - generally in isolation – and absent of the

voices of parents, industry, and the external school community as

a whole. As educational leadership researchers, we chose to study

the perceptions of a principal and teachers in the context of a

large, urban high school, in an effort to understand how they

construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct their roles in defining

community. As such, we bracketed out both a priori romantic as well

as pathological perspectives of community, focusing on the

9


participants' phenomenological interpretations. Thus, in keeping

with the dynamic aspects of community, we subtitled this article,

"The re-articulation of community."

Schools as Communities

As a facet of community, schools are vehicles that can raise

the collective aspirations of the masses to foster social,

economic, and political change (Gilbert, 1904). Contrarily,

schools can also be used as tools for subjugation and

marginalization (Greer, 1972). Kozol's (2005) 5-year study of 60

public schools in 11 states affirms this fact even today. More

recently, in the opening lines of his keynote address delivered

at the 2013 Annual Brown Lecture in Research Education, professor

and civil rights activist Gary Orfield noted that despite the

promise of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and overarching federal

legislation (Education and Secondary Education Act of 1965; No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001) the nation's public schools

proffer disparate student outcomes as they remain inherently

separate and unequal.

The inequity that Orfield (2013) spoke of is predicated by

10


racist and economically-motivated housing patterns, which has

caused the nation's schools and communities to become

increasingly segregated, contributing to the loss of whatever

gains were made by the Brown decision (Reardon, Grewal,

Kalogrides, & Greenberg, 2012). Most distressing, as school

districts receive unitary status and are no longer under federal

judiciary supervision (Orfield & Eaton, 1996; Swann v. Oklahoma City

v. Dowell, 1991; Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1,

2007) Black and Hispanic students were found to have a severely

limited opportunity to learn in America's classrooms as they

attend homogenous -re-segregated - schools. Expressly, 74 percent

of Black students and 80 percent of Hispanic students were found

to attend single-race schools. These schools are staffed by less

qualified teachers, utilize inadequate teaching materials, and

are often found in low-income communities (Orfield, Kucsera, &

Siegel-Hawley, 2012). Similarly, in a report issued by the Schott

Foundation for Public Education, racial isolation and poverty

were found to "redline" Black and Hispanic students who attend

New York City's public schools. For most of the city's 1.1

11


million students their opportunity to learn is little to none as

they "languish in schools [and communities] that lack the

resources and capacity to meet their academic or social needs"

(Holzman, 2012, p. vii).

Excellence, access, and equity were thought to be the

function of Brown and are at the heart of today's school reform

measures. Ironically, many education reformers have attempted to

redress public schools while ignoring their respective

communities. Warren (2005) noted how the two are inextricably

bound and on a larger scale Ravitch (2013) found public education

to be symbiotic with society and urged her readers not to be

swayed by manufactured tactics aimed to remove schooling from the

civic realm. Riley (2009) argued that policy discourse is

centered on the continual crisis of urban education. She goes on

to define the urban context of education to be in a perpetual

state of flux, "ever altering, shifting... a veritable

kaleidoscope of constantly changing groups of people, with their

day to day realities, hopes and dreams" (p.53). Riley explains

the purposeful nature of these individual realities nicely in the

12


following assertion, "How schools and communities work together

is unique to each context and based on intensively personal

relationships, which need to be developed" (p.60).

What is clear from Riley (2009) is that as Ravitch (2013)

and Dewey (1938) saw it: schools alone are inadequate means to

meet the needs of all students. Real connections with external

communes are essential to the efficacy of public schools. Yet as

Warren (2005) pointed out, public schools lost the connections,

both family and familiar, they established with neighborhoods at

the beginning of the twentieth century when Progressive Era

reforms centralized control of schooling by adopting

professionally run district administrations (Reese, 2002). Since

this time, educators, mayors, and community developers have

operated in separate spheres, both institutionally and

professionally (Author, Nesmith, Smith, & Gaines, 2014). Author

(2002) documented this multiplicity in terms of the post

progressive (i.e., beyond school) arguments for inserting social

justice into community schools. Further, Author (2014) labeled

these socially just leadership actions as the "hard truths" of

13


school leadership as opposed to coherent truths promulgated by

the vast within-school literature on school improvement (see

Leithwood, 2009).

Making Schools into Communities

School reform efforts are constructively postmodern in the

sense that there not only are no foundational truths in terms of

policies and best practices, but that stakeholders have to

construct, deconstruct and reconstruct meanings. That does not

mean that the word "community" itself is not relevant. Furman

(2004) and Warren (2005) build on the works of Sergiovanni (1992,

1996) and Staratt (1994, 2003) who framed the schoolhouse as an

ethical and moral community poised for transformation. However,

these idealistic conceptions of school as community ignore the

politics such as what happened in the late 1960s in Ocean Hill-

Brownsville, Brooklyn, when parents and community activists

rallied for better schools and community services: "social reform

as well as school reform" (Lewis, 2013, p.5). To explain this

situation, on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement so called

14


reformers pitted working class Black community members, who were

attempting to participate in the governance of their local

schools, against progressive labor forces trying to organize

teachers for better working conditions across the city. In the

end, the collision of these two progressive forces altered

history in the sense that both sides came to distrust one another

going forward, and we as a nation have not been able to forge a

post-progressive national urban education agenda.

Recently, notwithstanding the recession at the start of the

21st century and its effects on teacher pensions and municipal

budgets, collective bargaining and teacher unions have been

prominent agenda issues in urban education. Likewise, as labor

issues conflated with notions of teacher specialization and, in

general, teacher professionalism, the role of the external

community and parental involvement have diminished, making local

and parent governance pedagogically questionable and practically

more difficult (Jeynes, 2014). And, as more parents were

required to work outside the home, a cultural shift occurred.

Joel Perlmann's (1988) history of ethnic groups documents how

15


this phenomenon affected everyone, but most significantly Black

mothers, particularly those in what he called "broken families."

For decades in the 20th century, White married mothers were able

to stay home and out of the labor market longer than Non-White

mothers, married or otherwise. Combine this with the rise of the

single-parent households across all racial and ethnic groups,

parents were less likely to be able to participate in traditional

school activities, few of which actually involved governance.

Re-Articulating Community

Inasmuch as community efforts occur in process and in

fragments, one key to working within communities is to find the

right relationship or "fit" between individuals and organizations

(Tooms, Lugg, & Author, 2010). Grounded in the work of building

community in the face of urban trends and demographic shifts,

changing family structures and the rise of professional

dispositions of teachers, Boske (2012) expanded her notion of

bridge leadership. Using case studies and multiple examples,

Boske demonstrated how within a school's unique context, it was

necessary to tailor projects to build internal and external

16


relationships for community. At the same time, her work

maintained that schools had to be places where, educationally,

democracy and citizenship could be shaped (Dewey, 1938; Gaines,

Author, & Salaam, in press).

Larson and Ovando (2001) previously documented how school

administrators elevated school policies and rules over the larger

socio-political, economic and cultural dynamics in society.

Thus, like Leithwood (2009) argued, delimiting the role of school

administrators to what was viewed as under their control. Here is

how Larson and Ovando (2001) described the details of a school

confrontation:

The principal recognized and fully acknowledged that there

were visible racial tensions between Black and White students at

this event. He also understood the political symbolism of

tearing up a paper [American] flag. However, he overlooked these

issues in interpreting the protest and framed the students'

actions as misbehaving youths breaking school policy (p. 39, emphasis

added).

17


In this scene, the dominance of school policies, regulations, and

rules set clear borders within which appropriate actions are to

be taken and predetermines a disconnect between the principal and

the students. Therefore, keeping the notion of community fluid is

for us as researchers both a means and an end to understanding

the processes in re-articulating community. We believe an

examination such as this is crucial if schools are to reinvent

themselves as the “balance wheel” of society (Mann, 1848).

With this said, our work is to listen, record, and interpret

participants' voices regarding their roles in community

internally and externally. But the study cannot end with merely

descriptive evidence. We define the role of the urban researcher

as one who challenges ideas and looks to promote community

engagement. The work must extend beyond traditional scholarship

grounded in school effectiveness and school improvement research

(http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/nses20/current). In so doing, we

speak as researchers for social justice, which we define by

documenting the tangible differences in resources needed to help

urban schools and communities (Author, 2014). Further, we

18


recognize as a reality that "things fall apart" (Achebe, 1958)

justifying a postmodern view of social justice as "beginning

again" (Author, 2002) which we find to be a necessary dynamic for

urban school reforms.

Data Sources and Methods

Methodologically, this article explores the transformation

of a comprehensive urban high school to a school as community.

The data for this explanatory sequential mixed methods study

(Creswell, 2012) were gathered as part of our ongoing

participation in a longitudinal study of school leadership, the

International Successful School Principals’ Project (ISSPP) (Day,

2010). After reviewing the Learning Environment Surveys (LES) for

nearly 400 public high schools on the city’s Department of

Education’s (DOE) website, we elected to focus on the perceptions

of the principal, Dr. John Brown, and teachers at the Lucille

Campbell Green High School (LCG) and how they construct,

deconstruct, and reconstruct the role of community.

Learning Environment Survey

19


The LES is conducted annually and is among the largest

national school-based surveys. It reports how parents, teachers,

and students feel about their school’s learning environment. The

city’s DOE requires this data for all of its middle and high

schools. As can be seen in Table 1, based on survey results, LCG

bested the city’s high schools (overall) and specifically its 39

peer schools1 in making the most growth during 2011 – 2012

academic years. In the initial phase of this study, teacher data

contained in the 2012 LES were analyzed. 94 percent (N = 61) of

LCG’s teachers participated survey. They responded to 57 items.

11 items focused on the specific actions and perceptions of the

principal and from this one item from each of the LES categories

were included in our analyses.

1 Peer schools are created using a “nearest neighbor” matching methodology, which examines the mathematical difference between a school and it’s potentialpeers based on a prescribed set of benchmarks, schools with the least difference across all characteristics are “peered together.”

20


Table 1

2011 -2012 LES Growth ComparisonsLES Categories LCG Peer Schools (39)

CitywideAcademic Expectations 1.8 .8

.5Communication 2.3 1.1 1.0Engagement 2.1 .6 .3Safety & Respect 1.7 0 .3Note. Adapted from data obtained from the DOE’s website.

Principal and Teacher Interviews

Using a semi-structured questionnaire (Drever, 1995) adapted

from the ISSPP (Day, 2010) we interviewed the principal of LCG

one-to-one for nearly two hours. We asked a series of open-ended

questions centering on the perception of the school and the

development of successful leadership practices at the school site

over time. Our aim was to better understand the school and its

leader. We endeavored to know and be known (Bogdan & Biklen,

1992). In addition to the school principal, we interviewed four

teachers whom he identified as vital to the “success” of LCG and

the re-articulation of the school as community. The teachers were

interviewed one-to-one for one to two hours. While the principal

21


and teacher questionnaires were similar, they differed slightly

in that we sought to ascertain teachers’ perception of the

principal, his contribution to the “success” of LCG and the

transformation of the school as community. The questions asked in

both sets of interviews are included in Appendices. Table 2

details the demographic characteristics of the study’s

qualitative participants. Last, along with participant

interviews, descriptive field notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) were

included as part of the qualitative data for this study.

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of the ParticipantsGender 3 Females 2 MalesRace / Ethnicity 3 White 1 Hispanic 1 Middle EasternPrimary Language 3 English 1 Spanish 1 ArabicMethods

We analyzed the data in three steps. In the first step,

teacher data contained in the 2012 LES were explored. We utilized

the framework provided by the survey to understand the teachers’

perceptions of the principal and his actions (see Table 1). Next,

we collected principal and teacher semi-structured interview data

and descriptive field notes to explain the said quantitative

22


results (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). The transcripts and

field notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) were transcribed and

independently read and re-read employing a constant comparative

method of analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 2011) to

identify how, based on the LES data, the principal’s articulation

of community were interpreted by the teachers at LCG. We

discussed our understandings throughout this process to insure

consistency and reliability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

In all, we triangulated our findings, to identify how the

principal’s efforts to rearticulate school as community were

perceived by the teachers based on data obtained from the LES,

principal and teacher interviews, and descriptive field notes. We

sought to answer the following research questions: What are the

perceptions of a principal and teachers on community in the context of a large, urban

high school, and how do they construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct the role of

community?

Findings

We begin by providing a description and historical overview

of the Lucille Campbell Green High School (LCG). We then

23


introduce the new principal of LCG and outline the challenges he

faces as he attempts to re-articulate the school as community.

Specifically, we focus the perceptions of community and how the

concept and role of community is constructed amongst the

principal and teachers at LCG.

Lucille Campbell Green High School

This study of school as community is situated in a large

urban city in the Midwest U.S. The school district serves a

primarily Hispanic and Black student population, respectively.

These demographics are reflected in the student body at LCG,

wherein more than 60 percent of the students are Hispanic, 33

percent are Black, 4 percent are Asian and 1 percent are White.

According to the most recent census data, 75 percent of LCG’s

nearly 1,300 students are eligible for free and / or reduced

lunch. The school’s demographics however are not reflective of

its surrounding community. As with many historically Black

neighborhoods throughout the northeast and Midwest,

gentrification is causing property values to significantly

increase while simultaneously changing the face of its residents.

24


The school building is a massive gothic structure with tall

windows and looms on the southern edge of the city university

campus. Unlike many of the "historically Black" (Author, Nesmith,

Smith, & Gaines, 2014) previously segregated schools in the

north, LCG opened its doors in 1979 as the first collaborative

effort between the city's university and the city's Board of

Education. In the 1980s despite the fact that the crack cocaine

epidemic nearly decimated the surrounding neighborhoods, hundreds

of students applied each year for admissions to LCG, as it was a

trajectory to post-secondary education and improved life

outcomes. Unfortunately, nearly two decades after it opened, LCG

began to decline. While the school continued to carefully screen

students for admissions, reviewing their transcripts, attendance

records, and standardized test scores, its waning reputation no

longer made it a school of "first" choice. Students who once

would have applied to the ‘school on the top of the hill’ now

chose to attend the city’s “test-only” high schools. Moreover,

LCG’s once well-regarded academies no longer provided the

appropriate curricula for its respective technical and academic

25


programs. The school that was often referred to as the “Crown

Jewel” of the city was now plagued by a weak curriculum

sanctioned by a succession of unexceptional school leaders.

Scandal

From 2006-2011, LCG’s principal was dogged by charges of

incompetence, harassment, and most pressing, academic negligence.

To explain the concluding claim, one need only review the

school’s 2010 data: the four-year graduation rates catapulted by

30 points, ranking amongst the highest in the city, only to

plummet the next academic year. Then during the summer of 2011

several of the school's teachers contacted the Superintendent of

Schools to report abuses of the district’s credit recovery

policy. Although the principal was cleared of any wrongdoings,

the damage was done. Morale plummeted and many veteran teachers

resigned at the start of the next school year.

The 2011 academic year would prove to be a challenge for the

now infamous high school. While many stakeholders rejoiced at the

principal’s departure at the start of the school year, the

school’s letter grade and other evaluation systems continued to

26


fall. LCG was nowhere near the top of the choice schools. Also,

the school’s relationship with the city university seemed to

stall. Many pre-college programs housed in the university’s

colleges seemed to no longer want to work with the students and

teachers at the high school despite the fact that they shared a

campus. In addition, internal and external community members

wondered if LCG would close its doors as scores of high schools

in the city had done over the previous decade due to poor student

performance and low graduation rates.

A New Day

In the fall of 2013 LCG was met with good news. Based on its

2012 Learning Environment Survey (LES) the school was poised for

a comeback. In addition, its 2012 school grade increased by one

letter and several of the teachers who left in the summer of 2011

returned to their former positions. District officials and

faculty members attributed the noted changes to the novice

interim principal who was officially named LCG’s principal in the

spring of 2013. Dr. John Brown is a former teacher and

27


administrator at a “test-only” high school. He brought with him

credibility based on the district’s emphasis on academic

achievement. Brown arrives to school each day by 7 am and can be

found most mornings greeting students as they enter the school’s

large mahogany doors.

While the LCG’s new principal is eager to restore the high

school to its former glory, he is faced with several challenges.

First, upon careful review of its 2012 - 2013 Report Card, the

school did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as all students

did not meet the criterion based on their Secondary-Level Math

scores and graduation rates. Second, Brown must lead the

transition to a new curriculum founded in the Common Core State

Standards (CCSS), as set of internationally benchmarked, rigorous

learning standards adopted by 46 states since 2010. These

standards, and the assessments that will be aligned to them, are

designed to prepare (and assess) students’ readiness for college

and careers after graduation from high school (National Governors

Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State

School, 2010). Most importantly, Brown must re-articulate the

28


school as community. This, he says, is his most daunting task.

The following sections explore his efforts to transform the

school’s culture through a mixed methods investigation founded in

data obtained from LCG’s 2012 LES.

Academic Expectations

As discussed, LCG’s once highly lauded academies began to

falter at the start of the new millennium. Students, who attended

the high school and hoped to graduate with transcripts that

delineated certain curricula and programs of study, were often

disappointed when they learned that their chosen academy was in

name only. Accordingly, one of the first things Brown did as the

interim principal was to restructure LCG’s curriculum and

increase the school’s course offerings. During our conversation

the principal acknowledged that there were some initial concerns

regarding the school’s advertised programs and curricula rigor.

He hesitantly revealed, “We’ve been working very hard with the

faculty in rearticulating our mission. There were, I would say,

some concerns about losing our focus…” Many of the noted concerns

came from faculty members and administrators at the city

29


university who were neither impressed with the quality of LCG’s

graduates nor in the school’s lack of attendance at university-

sponsored events aimed at high school students.

Dr. Brown knew that he had to make the school attractive not

only to entering freshmen but also to the colleges and

universities LCG’s graduates hoped to attend. To meet these needs

he took several steps. He began by seeking input from the

faculty, as many of them were reluctant to revise their pedagogy.

Fortunately, he was able to address many of the teachers’

concerns by meeting with them in small groups, where he would ask

them how they should proceed, as a community, to meet the needs

of their students while fulfilling the school’s mission. Then,

with their guidance, LCG began to rebuild each academic program.

The first program to be reframed was the Engineering Academy. As

part of this effort unused space was refitted to house an

Engineering Lab and a Math teacher with previous Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) experience was

hired. In addition, supplemental Algebra courses were created and

offered to struggling students to make them STEM ready. Further,

30


Brown crafted a partnership with a leading national organization

in K -12 STEM education. The provider offered a robust

curriculum, teacher education, and a proven track record in

increasing student performance.

The refocusing of the school’s academic programs and the

increase in course offerings is clearly evident in the 2012 LES

where teachers overwhelming agreed (93 percent) that the

principal placed the needs of the students above personal and

political interests. All of the teachers interviewed were proud

to boast of LCG’s new Engineering Academy and overall

environment. One teacher noted, “It’s a noticeable change in the

environment and culture of the school since he [the principal]

arrived.” Another attributed the new “mood” in the building to

principal and spoke of his foresight. She ascertained, “He knew

what he was walking into. I think that made the difference… He

went in and did his homework.” When preparing for the interim

position Brown shared that he studied the school’s academic

history and prior LES data. He knew that many faculty members

were not content with the fabled academies and endeavored to

31


rearticulate them only after soliciting their input. This was a

wise move that endeared him to the faculty and will hopefully

bolster student achievement.

Safety and Respect

LCG is one of the few remaining large high schools in the

city. Almost all of its peer schools require students and

visitors to pass through metal detectors upon entry. While this

safety measure is an option for LCG, the school’s leadership team

has never considered it. Dr. Brown along with the teachers,

parents, and students feel that LCG is a “safe school.”

Ironically, while teachers feel physically safe at school, many

are cautious of their new leader and of his words and actions. To

explain, only 72 percent of the teachers surveyed “strongly

agreed” with the statement: I feel respected by the principal at

my school.

This finding was most evident at the first School Leadership

Team meeting when several key members of the faculty either

walked in late or were reticent when discussing the school’s

Comprehensive Educational Plan, an annual document produced by

32


the team and intended to drive the direction of the school’s

leadership practices. Despite these happenings, Dr. Brown relayed

that he was eager to establish a practice of distributed

leadership at LCG, a drastic change from his predecessor. Part of

this, admittedly, is hard for him to do and may account for the

lack of respect felt (and demonstrated) by some faculty members.

Engagement

The overarching question for Engagement asked if teachers

felt involved “in an active and vibrant partnership to promote

learning.” In response to a related question, 70 percent of the

teaching staff felt “strongly supported” and 23 percent felt

“supported” by the principal. In explaining these findings a

teacher shared, “He [Brown] makes you feel like, that he really

actually wants to help you succeed because he wants to build up

his community.” The principal’s efforts to build community

engagement not only among his teachers, but among parents and

teachers were evidenced in the fact that he was able to

restructure the school’s budget to hire a full-time Parent

Coordinator at the start of the 2013 academic year. The liaison’s

33


duties include assisting teachers in contacting parents and

encouraging parental involvement.

Ironically, in relation to Brown’s efforts to restructure

the school as community, one of the teachers offered that he was

so interested in developing the internal school community that he

was ignoring the external school community. She noted, “We’re so

focused on working on the inside like internally to get the

structure right in here that we’re not really focusing on how to

get the community involved as much as we should.”

Communication

Trust and honesty are essential in all meaningful

relationships. And while the principal stated several times

during our interview that the vast majority of the teachers at

LCG trusted him, in response to the statement - I trust the

principal at his word - only 67 percent of the teachers surveyed

“strongly agreed.” One of the teachers surmised the feelings of

the faculty when she stated:

34


I think people are still in a culture shock… There is [sic]

a lot of people in the building that have been through all

the different transitions of leadership. This new guy, I

think they like what’s going on, but I think they think it’s

a temporary thing right now. I think may be another couple

of years it will be like ‘Okay, this is the way, it’s going

to be like this, it’s going to be good,’ hopefully in won’t

change.

In conclusion, the quantitative and qualitative data for

this study revealed that school as community for LCG is in, as

one teacher said, “its infancy stage.” By doing his homework and

building the components to each academic program mindfully, Dr.

Brown is on the right path. He knew who LCG once was, where they

were headed, and more importantly, who they could be. He also

admits that while the school has made progress, success is an on-

going effort. He knows that while he was able to grab a few “low-

hanging fruit” the real challenge is in long-term success and the

re-articulation of the school as community.

Discussion

35


During the data collection and analyses for this study

we found that schools, like communities, are complex. We also

realized that if schools as communities are to be efficient and

meet the needs of their members, particularly in urban areas,

school leaders must “fit” their community. In the following

section we discuss the fit criteria of Dr. Brown as he and the

teachers at the Lucille Campbell Green High School attempt to

construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct their roles in defining

community.

Learning to Lead

History is oftentimes the best teacher and communities both

whole and healthy as well as those in need all have histories.

Therefore, the first “fit” principle for a rising urban school

leader is to learn the history of their school community and then

learn from it. Dr. Brown met both of these conditions as he

studied LCG’s record of academic achievement and then met with

teachers individually and in small groups to ascertain where and

how LCG could grow. Based on these conversations he was able to

collaborate with the teachers to set and attain community goals.

36


These small wins also served to raise the levels of climate and

culture at LCG. Brown’s intent was to once again make teachers

proud of LCG and he did so by rebuilding the academies one at a

time. In addition, the decision to first rebuild the Engineering

Academy further enhanced the rebuilding of community internally

and externally – as this area of K-12 STEM has federal and state

priority, and allowed the school to (1) partner with a national

organization and (2) enhance its reputation and collaborative

efforts amongst faculty and administrators at the city

university.

Trusting in Time

Dr. Brown's predecessor left LCG engulfed in scandal and

crisis. School morale was low and scores of community members

wondered whether the city's Mayor would close the school.

Moreover, while some teachers welcomed Brown's arrival as he came

from an "A" rated "test only" school, some questioned his

appointment at LCG. They wondered if he would stay at LCG to help

rebuild the school or was he part of the DOE's plan to dismantle

one of the last large comprehensive high schools in the city.

37


With this said, the second "fit" criterion revolves around the

urban school leader fostering an environment where members, in

this case the faculty, feel safe - physically as well as

professionally. Based on our interviews and field notes, Brown is

making progress in this regard and has endeavored not to follow

in the former principal’s autocratic footsteps.

LCG’s new principal is gradually earning the respect of his

faculty and is not using his positional power alone to do so.

Throughout our conversations with the teachers, many noted his

prior classroom experience and whole-heartedly trust his judgment

on matters that pertain to the curriculum and classroom

management. However, many of the teachers, senior faculty members

in particular, have yet to align themselves with Brown as the

school’s leader. However, by not adding a metal detector (as the

school never had one and doesn't feel it needs one) and

establishing an open door policy, he is slowly gaining the

faculty's trust (a safety issue in terms of speaking honestly).

Building trust in schools as communities happens over time. As

such, Dr. Brown does not readily admonish teachers for insolence

38


as demonstrated at the initial School Leadership Team’s meeting.

He is mindful of LCG’s history and does not want to be mirror the

actions of his predecessor. While this may be a best practice for

now, Brown must begin to establish and reinforce long term norms

based on trust.

Making the Connections

Student success must be the overall function and goal of a

school as community. In order to be successful, students need all

members of the school community (both internally and externally)

to work together in meaningful ways. Part of the role of the

school leader is to be the steward of this praxis. For this

reason, the third “fit” characteristic for the urban school

leader is to be a collaborator in and outside of the school

community. By hiring a Parent Coordinator to act as a liaison

between teachers and parents, Brown has taken a sound first step.

In addition, he is working diligently to reestablish

relationships with the city’s university. In fact, throughout the

fall semester he met with the Dean of the College of Engineering

several times as well as with several of the administrator’s who

39


run pre-college initiatives at the university to discuss future

collaborative efforts.

Secondly, during our interview and based on our field notes

Brown made it known that he was looking to establish a mentoring

program for students who are disconnected from the school

community. Many of these students are truant and some have been

suspended for fighting and others for theft of the school’s

property. He has already identified two-dozen potential mentees

and is currently working with an external partner to identify

organizations that may be able reengage these young people while

addressing their socio-emotional needs. Brown understands that as

the leader of a school as community he must involve external

agencies to foster the success of all students.

Managing Change

It must have come as a refreshing surprise to the faculty of

LCG when their new principal consulted with them on a wide range

of issues, from curriculum and academics to safety and parent and

student engagement. While the literature supports these efforts

as effective best practices for school leaders, it does not

40


explain how faculty should respond to changes in leadership and

how long it might take for behavioral changes to become the norms

of the school community. In this light, the fourth and final

“fit” criterion for the urban school leader is to be a transition

manager, a change agent.

Based on teacher interviews and field notes procured at the

school site many of LCG’s teachers feel as if they are treading

on uncertain waters and while they are pleased with Dr. Brown

thus far, they are not quite sure of his leadership practices.

Hence, as a change agent the new school leader must continue to

collaborate and encourage internal and external members of the

school’s community to work together for the best interests of the

children under their charge. While Brown meets with the School

Leadership Team and Parent Teacher Organizations on a monthly

basis as prescribed by district protocol, he has also established

work groups to address the more immediate needs of the school

community. These groups include diverse members of the school

body and are an effective means to insure communication,

41


transparency, and fair play. Brown should continue these efforts

for they will make his vision of school as community a reality.

Conclusions

Problematizing community is not an academic question in

the sense that it involves actions on the part of students,

teachers, administrators and parents. For example, a student

might come up with an idea that turns into a community project,

on her/his own. A teacher may have sparked the idea, but it was

the student’s agency that extended the activity beyond the

school. Our point is that community action hinges on agency,

whether it is students, teachers or administrators. The rules of

public education such as zero tolerance and other restrictive

measures deliberately disconnect schools from communities. To

reconnect schools and communities requires new rules, new job

boundary-spanning activities. As researchers, we translated the

four Learning Environment Survey categories into four leadership

processes: Learning to Lead, Trust in Time, Making the

Connections, and Managing Change. Thus, school as community is a

long term and deliberate strategy that addresses demographic

42


statistics and trends, geographic spaces (propinquity), living

and housing conditions, and the cultural heritage of students and

families. We, therefore, conceptualize social justice to an

educational construct (Author, 2008) as necessary as well as

contingent extending beyond the school building. This requires

new and different policies redefining the roles and work of

educators. In so doing, it is possible to redefine the role and

meanings of communities surrounding schools such that they play a

more significant role as a matter of their own

self-interest/agency/determination supported by legitimate

policies, rules, and practices.

Re-articulating the meaning of community is itself a

communal process involving members of the school community

embracing best practices beyond textbook adoptions and teaching

prescribed lessons. You can’t do this overnight or by fiat. It

has to be sown back into the fiber of public education. It is not

enough to know that such work was more common 100 years ago. We

need to begin again (and again however many times to) build the

groundwork for school as community out of today’s teachers and

43


administrators working with parents, industry, colleges and

universities.

Appendix A

Principal Interview Questions

1. When did you arrive at this school?

2. What position were you appointed to?

3. Outline your career to date.

44


4. Describe the policy and social contexts of this school.

5. Identify the key aspects/characteristics of the school.

6. Would you like to stay in this school?

7. Would you prefer to be working in less challenging

circumstances?

8. How do you cope with the challenges in this school?

9. What kinds of support have you had in this challenging job?

10. Identify the key aspects of success in the school.

11. Explain your role as the principal in the success of

the school.

12. Define the strategies you use in your role as principal

at various levels in the school.

45


Appendix B

Teacher Interview Questions

1. When did you arrive at this school?

2. What is your current position in the school now?

3. Describe the policy and social contexts of your school.

4. Identify the key aspects/characteristics of the school.

5. Identify the key aspects of success in the school.

6. Identify the role of the principal in the success of the

school.

7. What do you think is the principal’s vision for the school?

8. How do you describe the kind of leadership in the school?

9. What do you think drives the principal in his job?

10. Identify/define the strategies of the principal at

various levels.

46


References

Achebe, C. (1994). Things fall apart. Anchor. First published in

1958.

Bauer, S. & Brazer, S. (2012). Using research to lead school improvement:

Turning

evidence into action. Los Angeles: Sage.

Bender, T. (1978). Community and social change in America. New

Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers University Press.

Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell. 498 U.S. 237 (1991).

47


Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education:

An introduction to

theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to

theory and methods (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Author, I. (2002). Educational leadership and social justice:

Practice into theory. Journal of

School Leadership, 12 (2), 138 – 156.

Author, I. (2008). Social justice as an educational construct. In

I. Author, F. Beachum, J.

Blount, J. Brooks, & F. English, Radicalizing educational leadership:

Dimensions of

social justice. (79-122). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishing.

Author, I. (2014). Educational theory: The specific case of

social justice as an educational

leadership construct. In I. Author & C. Shields (Eds.).

International handbook of

48


educational leadership and social (in)justice. Chapter 4,

(51-66). Dordrecht, NL: Springer

Author, I., Nesmith, L., Smith, S., & Gaines, F. (2014). Urban

school leadership and fit. In R.

Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.). Handbook of urban education.

(Chapter 17, 305-324-

166). New York: Routledge.

Boske, C. (2012). Educational leadership: Building bridges among ideas, schools,

and nations.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas. 347 U. S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686

(1954).

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council

of Chief State School

Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. National Governors Association Center

for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington D.C.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

49


and qualitative research. (4th Ed.). New York: Pearson.

Day, C. (2010). Conducting research on successful school principals: Associate

member’s guide. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottinham.

Dewey, J. (1897) My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54(1), 77-90.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Drever. E. (1995). Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research. A teacher’s guide.

Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 – 8962 (1965).

Fla. Const. art. IX, § 1.

Furman, G. C. (2004). The ethic of community. Journal of Educational

Administration, 42 (2).

215-235.

Gaines, F. Author, I. & Salaam, O. (in press). Destiny High

School: A Template for Urban

High School Success In. Khalifa, M., Grant, C., &

Witherspoon-Arnold, N.

(Eds.). Handbook for Urban Educational Leadership. Landham, MD:

Rowman &

50


Littlefield.

Gilbert, N. (1904). Pedagagoical commentary. In A. Wray, Jean

Mitchell’s School.

Bloomington, ILL: Public School Publishing.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:

Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Glaser, B. (2011). Getting out of the data: Grounded theory conceptualization. Mill

Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. D. (1989). Toward aconceptual framework

for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Greer, C. (1972). The great school legend: A revisionist interpretation of American public

education. New York: Penguin Books.

Holzman, M. (2012). A rotting apple: Education redlining in New York City. TheSchott

Foundation for Public Education.

51


Jeynes, W. (2014). Parent involvement for urban students and youth of color. In R. Milner & K.

Lomotey (Eds.). Handbook of urban education. (Chapter 8, 149-166). New York:

Routledge.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of a nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America.

New York: Crown Publishers.

Larson, C. L., & Ovando, C. J. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in

multicultural school communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Leithwood, K. (2009). Closing the achievement gap: What successful school leaders know and

do. Report to the Ontario Ministry of Education

Lewis, H. (2013). New York City public schools from Brownsville to bloomberg:

Community control and its legacy. New York: Teachers College.

Limperopulos, N. (2014). I’ve done my sentence, but committed nocrime. In A. Normore & J.

Brooks, (Eds.). Educational leadership for ethics and social justice: Views from the

social sciences Chapter 10, 179-201. Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.

52


Mann, H. (1848). Speech of Mr. Horace Mann on the right of Congress to legislate for

the territories of the United States and its duty to exclude slavery therefrom:

Delivered in the House of Representatives in committee of the whole, June 30,

1848 (Rev. ed.). Boston: W.B. Fowle.

Merz, C., & Furman, G. (1997).Community and schools: Promise and paradox. New

York: Teachers College Press.

New York City Department of Education. (2014). Learning environment surveys [Data file].

Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/tools/survey/default.htm

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Vol. Public Law Print of PL 107 -110.

Orfield, G., & Eaton, S. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v.

Board of Education. New York: The New Press.

Orfield, G., Kuscera, J. & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). (2011). E pluribus… Separation

deepening double segregation for more students. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Civil Rights

Project.

Orfield, G. (2013). A new civil rights agenda for American education [Lecture notes]. Retrieved

53


from http://www.aera.net/EventsMeetings/AnnualBrownLectureinEducationResearch

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U. S. 701,

127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007).

Patri, A. (1917). A schoolmaster of the great City: A progressive educator's pioneering vision

for urban schools. New York: MacMillan Company.

Perlmann, J. (1988). Ethnic differences: Schooling and social structure among the Irish,

Italians, Jews, & Blacks in an American city, 1880-1935. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the

danger to America's public schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Reardon, S. F., Grewal, E. T., Kalogrides, D. and Greenberg, E. (2012), Brown fades:

The end of court-ordered school desegregation and the resegregation of American

Public schools. Journal of Policy Analysis Management, 31, 876–904.

Reese, W. J. (2002). Power and promise of school reform: Grassroots movements during the

54


progressive era. New York: Teachers College Press.

Riley, K.A. (2009). Reconfiguring urban leadership: taking a perspective on community. School

Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 29 (1), 51-63.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992). Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Stack, S. (2004). Elsie Ripley Clapp (1879-1965): Her life and the community school. Peter Lang

Publishing Inc.

Starratt, R.J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis

in schools. London: Falmer.

Starratt, R. J. (2003). Centering educational administration: Cultivating meaning,

community, responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tooms, A., Lugg, C., & Author, I. (2010). Rethinking the politicsof fit and educational

leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 96-131.

55


Warren, M. (2005). Communities and Schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 75(2), 133 – 139.

Wonycott-Kytle, A. M. & Author. I. E. (1997). Reculturing: assumptions, beliefs, and

values underlying the process of restructuring. Journal of School Leadership, 7

(1) 27-49.

56

School as Community Final Draft 1 2

Documents

Transcript of School as Community Final Draft 1 2