the strengths and challenges of community …. aisr staff were instrumental in the formation of the...

The Strengths and

Challenges of

Community Organizing

as an Education

Reform Strategy:

What the Research Says

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

C O M M U N I T Y O R G A N I Z I N G A S A N E D U C AT I O N R E F O R M S T R AT E G Y S E R I E S

prepared by MICHELLE RENÉE | SARA MCALISTER

JANUARY 2011

Nellie Mae Education Foundation

Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University

The Strengths and

Challenges of

Community Organizing

as an Education

Reform Strategy:

What the Research Says

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


LEAD RESEARCHERSMichelle Renée, Senior Research Associate, Annenberg Institute

Sara McAlister, Research Associate, Annenberg Institute

Tracie Potochnik, Research Associate, Annenberg Institute

Richard Gray, Co-Director, Community Organizing and Engagement,Annenberg Institute

RESEARCH SUPPORTJill Corsi, Student Intern, Brown University

Rachel Fischhoff, Student Intern, Brown University

Kate Monteiro, Systems Coordinator, Annenberg Institute

Deinya Phenix, Senior Research Associate, Annenberg Institute

PROJECT COORDINATION AND PUBLICATIONJoanne Thompson, Research Associate, Annenberg Institute

Margaret Balch-Gonzalez, Staff Editor, Annenberg Institute

O’rya Hyde-Keller, Copyeditor, Annenberg Institute

Mary Arkins Decasse, Publications Coordinator, Annenberg Institute

Haewon Kim, Graphic Design, Annenberg Institute

COVER PHOTO

Jason Masten, Technology Coordinator, Annenberg Institute

SUGGESTED CITATION FORMATRenée, M., and S. McAlister. 2011. The Strengths and Challenges of Community Organizing as an Education Reform Strategy: Whatthe Research Says; Executive Summary. Community Organizing as an Education Reform Strategy Series. Prepared by the Annen-berg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. Quincy,MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

Prepared for the Nellie Mae Education Foundation by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.

© 2011 Nellie Mae Education Foundation

Annenberg Institute for School Reform i

Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University

The Annenberg Institute for School Reform (AISR) at Brown University is a nationalresearch and reform support organization. AISR promotes quality education for all chil-dren by building capacity for systemic education reform among policy-makers, districtleaders, educators, parents, and community groups, especially those serving low-incomeneighborhoods and communities of color.

An important part of that work is to provide research, data analysis, capacity building,and other supports for adult and youth organizing groups working for education reform.In New York City, staff now part of AISR pioneered a collaborative model for parent-and youth-led education organizing in the South Bronx.1 This work laid the foundationfor additional neighborhood collaboratives and the formation in 2006 of the New YorkCity Coalition for Educational Justice, a citywide collaborative of parent organizinggroups. AISR staff were instrumental in the formation of the Urban Youth Collaborative,a citywide coalition of five youth-led organizations.

Building on the work in New York City, AISR staff now provide support to other localand state education organizing initiatives. We are also expanding our capacity to provideresearch and policy support to community organizations focused on federal policy.

In addition to supporting organizing efforts, AISR specializes in conducting research oneducation organizing. The 2009 series Organized Communities, Stronger Schools was anational study to examine the impact of urban community and youth organizing onschool and district capacity to promote student learning. The study concluded that thereis strong evidence for the impact of community organizing on resource allocations andequity, relationships between schools and families, teacher professional culture, and stu-dent outcomes. The study also identified key aspects of organizational capacity that areimportant for leading successful campaigns.2

The Community Organizing as an Education Reform Strategy Series, of which this exec-utive summary is a part, further builds on this research agenda. The series includes aresearch report, the executive summary, and a directory of community organizations inNew England doing education organizing. All three products are available at<www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/NMEF.php>.

1 These staff joined the Annenberg Institute in 2006.2See <www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/OrganizedCommunities.php>.

ii The Strengths and Challenges of Community Organizing as an Education Reform Strategy: Executive Summary

The Nellie Mae Education Foundation

The Nellie Mae Education Foundation (NMEF) is the largest charitable organization inNew England that focuses exclusively on education. NMEF believes that to improve col-lective prospects for the future, all learners must possess the skills and knowledge neces-sary for full participation in postsecondary education, work, and life. Toward this end,NMEF supports the promotion and integration of developmentally appropriate, rigor-ous, student-centered approaches to learning at the middle and high school levels. Theseapproaches acknowledge that in today’s world, students need to know not only mathand English, but also how to collaborate, solve problems, and utilize technology.

Student-centered approaches draw on the science of how people learn and are character-ized by: innovative uses of time; the inclusion of a wider variety of adults to complementteachers in all aspects of learning; the measurement of skills and mastery of content usinga combination of performance-based assessments and traditional testing; an acknowl-edgement that learning takes place both in and out of the classroom; and a persistentfocus on the needs and interests of learners. In this type of educational experience, learn-ing becomes the constant, and the where, when, and how it happens – as well as who theadults are who facilitate it – become the variables.

In an effort to serve as a catalyst for a remodeled educational system, NMEF utilizes athree-part strategic approach:

• We work with practitioners to develop and enhance effective, evidence-based, student-centered approaches to learning.

• We dedicate ourselves to shaping policies that allow these approaches to flourish.

• We concentrate on increasing public understanding and demand for high-quality edu-cational experiences for all learners.

NMEF awards grants primarily through four strategic initiatives:

• District Level Systems Change, which includes the promotion and integration of stu-dent-centered approaches, as well as policy and community organizing/advocacy workat the district level;

• State Level Systems Change, which focuses on promoting state and federal educa-tion policies that support student-centered learning at scale;

• Research and Development, which not only informs our work, but also that of prac-titioners in the fields of education and philanthropy;

• Public Understanding, which aims to increase both awareness of student-centeredlearning experiences and the public demand to implement them.

NMEF understands that community organizing and engagement is essential to attainingits goals. Rather than engaging communities at the end of efforts, NMEF works with itsDistrict Level Systems Change grantees to include community partners in the design,development, and implementation of reforms.3 For these reasons, NMEF commissionedthe Community Organizing as an Education Reform Strategy Series.4

3 For more information, see <www.nmefdn.org/grantmaking/Initiatives/District>.4 See <www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/NMEF.php> for more information on the series.

Annenberg Institute for School Reform 1

IntroductionCommunity organizing for school reform offers anurgently needed alternative to traditional approaches toschool reform. While many current reforms are innova-tive, they often fail to thrive due to lack of trust, under-standing, or cultural relevance to the community beingtargeted by the reform (Oakes & Rogers 2006; Payne2008). The high turnover of reformers (superinten-dents, principals, or outside organizations) in high-needschools and districts is another major cause of schoolreform failure (Mintrop & Sunderman 2009). Finally,reforms also fail because they do not address extremeinequities in resources and empowerment between poorcommunities and their more privileged counterparts(Oakes & Rogers 2006; Renée, Welner & Oakes 2010).Community organizing, in contrast, has the potentialto situate education issues within larger economic andsocial systems, directly address issues of power, andbuild democratic capacity to sustain meaningful educa-tion reforms over the long term (Anyon 2005; Medi-ratta, Shah & McAlister 2009a; Oakes & Rogers 2006;Shirley 2009).

Perhaps the largest and most recognizable example of community organizing for school reform was thenational desegregation of the education system that followed the civil rights movement of the 1960s.Desegregation was ordered by the court; but buildingpublic will to challenge racist practices and accept hugechanges in the structure of public schools was the resultof decades of careful research, planning, and commu-nity organizing (Kluger 2004).5

Though not at the scale of the national civil rightsmovement, organizers around the nation are currentlyworking in communities to ensure that historicallymarginalized parents and students can participate inlocal, state, and national education debates and deci-sions. Research has shown that the community organiz-ing approach to school reform has led to successes suchas increases in education funding, more equitable distri-bution of education resources, greater access to collegepreparatory curriculum, and more effective teacherrecruitment and retention in hard-to-staff schools

(Mediratta, Shah & McAlister 2009a; Shirley 2009).Local community organizations are also building theircapacity to work at the state and federal policy levels(Oakes & Rogers 2006; Renée, Welner & Oakes2010).

The Annenberg Institute for School Reform and theNellie Mae Education Foundation aim to add to theknowledge base of education organizing for schoolreform with the Community Organizing as an Educa-tion Reform Strategy Series. The series includes thisexecutive summary, a directory of community organi-zations doing education organizing in New England,and a research report.6 The report examined a smallbut growing body of literature on community organiz-ing for education reform, including individual casestudies, regional and national scans of the field, inves-tigations of why this reform strategy matters, and alarge study documenting the impact of communityorganizing on education policy, school capacity, andstudent educational outcomes across organizations.The report begins by defining community organizingfor school reform and describing how it works in prac-tice and what makes it unique. The report then looksat existing evidence on the impact of communityorganizing and discusses its strengths and limitations.This executive summary presents highlights from thatreport.

5 Community organizing has a long history in the United States. See theresearch report in the Community Organizing as an Education ReformStrategy Series at <www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/NMEF.php>for more details and references.

6 The full series is available at <www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/NMEF.php>.

2 The Strengths and Challenges of Community Organizing as an Education Reform Strategy: Executive Summary

How Does Community Organizing forSchool Reform Work?Community organizing for school reform leverages thecollective power of parents, youth, community resi-dents, and/or institutions to alter longstanding powerrelationships and policies that produce failing schoolsin under-served communities.7 The goal is to createmore accountable, equitable, high-quality schools forall students by challenging the patterns of inequalitythat are built into the rules and laws that guideschools; the individual beliefs of many educators andadministrators about who is capable of learning; andthe relationships between stakeholders that dictate howa reform is adopted and implemented (Renée 2006).While some community organizing takes the form ofdirect protest, a large part is about building powerfulcollaborations and partnerships between organizersand other education stakeholders.

Current federal policies require states to create stan-dards and assessments to measure student learning,then create a series of rewards and sanctions for schoolsthat fail to show growth according to those assess-ments. This approach focuses on holding studentsaccountable for learning and teachers for teaching, butdoes not hold policy-makers accountable for providingthe resources or conditions needed for students tolearn. Community organizing, in contrast, focuses onthe accountability of policy-makers and school leadersto students, parents, and the community. From thisstandpoint, low test scores are seen not as the failure ofa single student, teacher, or principal, or the unfortu-nate consequence of complex social factors, but asproof that the education system is failing to provide allyoung people with all of the opportunities, resources,and supports they need to become educated citizens.

Community organizing for education reform explicitlyfocuses on working with – not just on behalf of – low-income communities and communities of color toincrease the power of residents to speak and act forthemselves. Paid staff can work for community organ-izing groups, but the leadership structure and power

comes from this base of community members. Com-munity organizing groups often work in partnershipwith advocacy organizations, service providers, andothers, but they have a unique definition of their workand strategies (Evans 2009). Community organizers donot need to take a neutral stance on problems in theeducation system, nor do they need to balance com-peting demands arising from district and state man-dates and from federal rules, regulations, and policies.Rather, community organizing starts with a clear mis-sion to do whatever is necessary to improve the qualityof education for all students in the system.

Organizing groups engage in a constant, iterativeprocess of recruiting those most impacted by socialproblems and inequitable policies and striving todevelop broad, shared capacity to take leadership rolesin demanding change. Groups spend significant timetraining members in all aspects of a campaign – howto lead a meeting, how to partner with a researcher,how to write a press release. They engage in a collectivedialogue to identify and research issues, brainstormsolutions with allies, consult experts, build alliances,analyze the political terrain, formulate a plan for creat-ing change, and take collective action (AISR 2010a).

7 For more details and a framework on how community organizing works,see the research report.


What Makes Community Organizing a Unique Reform Strategy?Several key strategies distinguish community organizingfor school reform from conventional reform strategies.

• Addressing power relationships. Communityorganizing begins from the assumption that schoolreform is a complex process that includes not onlythe practical business of curriculum and teaching,but also many layers of power, politics, beliefs, andculture (Mediratta, Shah & McAlister 2009a; Oakes& Rogers 2006; Renée 2006; Shirley 2009). Alongwith addressing the technical aspects of a reform,community organizing also works toward under-standing the power relationships and ideas that canadvance or impede a reform.

• Developing political will to advance equity.Community organizing is unique in taking an“inside/outside” approach to school reform. Organ-izing develops a broad constituency for reform andensures that proposed reforms reflect the needs and interests of those who will be impacted. Medi-ratta, Shah, and McAlister (2009a) found that com-munity organizations can create the political willneeded to implement and sustain a particular changethrough negotiation, public awareness, and pressure,at the same time increasing the social capital ofunder-served communities so those gains can be sustained.

• Developing relevant, innovative solutions. Byengaging the people most impacted by inequalityand poverty in the creation, adoption, and imple-mentation of reforms, community organizing insertsunique, relevant ideas and solutions into the process.The directory of organizations in this series providesmany examples.

• Looking beyond education to comprehensivereform on multiple issues. Because many commu-nity organizations work on multiple issue areas likepoverty, housing, transportation, or health care,their ideas and priorities embed school reform in arealistic and comprehensive web of social and eco-nomic issues (Anyon 2005).

• Building democratic capacity. Community organ-izing builds democratic capacity and participationof the community. Delgado Gaitan (2001) foundthat engaging in school reforms to benefit their chil-dren changed community residents’ perceptionsabout their lives “from one of deficit to empower-ment, [which] led to the cultural changes in thefamily, the community, and in their personal lives”(p. 175).


Evidence of Impact The body of research documenting the activities,processes, and outcomes of community organizing forschool reform has grown steadily over the past decade(Shirley 2009). The research field was launched withtwo book-length studies documenting the emergingAlliance Schools model of school-based organizingdeveloped by the Texas Industrial Areas Foundation(IAF) (Shirley 1997) and the efforts of BaltimoreansUnited in Leadership Development to strengthen theircity’s schools (Orr 1999). As the number of commu-nity organizing groups pursuing educational changegrew, more and more scholars turned their attention todocumenting the methods, outcomes, and trends ofeducation organizing campaigns.

This initial body of research has been qualitative andhas focused on individual cases; thus, it has offeredlimited evidence of links between education organizingand outcomes for schools and students in general.However, in line with other literature on best practicesfor school reform, research on community organizingprovides evidence of the effectiveness of organizing as astrategy for increasing equity, improving school cul-ture, and winning policy and practice reforms in spe-cific sites. For example, one of the most studiededucation organizing efforts – the Texas IAF’s work tobuild a statewide network of Alliance Schools – hasproduced deep, meaningful engagement with parentsand community members in schools across Texas;changed the way educators relate to each other and tostudents; and won hundreds of millions of dollars inadditional funding to support professional develop-ment, services for students, and community resourceslike ESL and GED courses (Warren 2001; Shirley1997, 2002).

As community organizing has grown in prominence asa school reform strategy, the need has grown moreacute to systematically examine its contributions todistrict- and school-level change and improved studentoutcomes. But community organizing is a complex,unpredictable process tightly bound to the context inwhich it arises. Thus, community organizing does notlend itself to an experimental design that randomly

assigns schools or districts to “treatment” and “con-trol” groups (Shah, Mediratta & McAlister 2009). Nor can research findings usually be replicated. It isalso impossible to completely isolate the impacts ofcommunity organizing from myriad other reformefforts that are often under way, particularly in low-performing schools – or from the impacts of teacherand leader turnover, changes in neighborhood demo-graphics, or shifts in policy.

Despite these challenges, progress has been made inelaborating methods for analyzing the outcomes ofeducation organizing. In 2002, a team of scholars atResearch for Action in Philadelphia and the Cross CityCampaign for Urban School Reform undertook amajor project to develop a framework of indicators foreducation organizing that could begin to assess theimpact of organizing activities on schools and commu-nities (Gold, Simon & Brown 2002). In 2009, AISRcompleted a six-year study of the impact on theirschools of seven community organizing groupsengaged in education campaigns. By applying a rigor-ous methodology – creating a framework that triangu-lated qualitative data with quantitative analyses of theimpacts of community-led reforms – the researcherswere able to produce evidence where previous studieshad not. The study documented that education organ-izing resulted in increased district responsiveness to the needs of low-income communities; new resourcesfor facilities, curriculum, teacher development, andparent engagement; new policies; better teacher-parentcollaboration, parent influence in school decision mak-ing, and teacher collaboration; and leadership develop-ment among community leaders (Mediratta, Shah &McAlister 2009a).


Effective Strategies in Community Organizing for School ReformConfrontational protests are the most visible and radi-cal of community organizing tactics, but communityorganizing for school reform also makes use of whatDella Porta and Diani (1999) describe as bearing wit-ness – publishing policy reports, providing testimony ata school board meeting, or holding a press conference.Community organizations also spend significant timecreating change through building alliances with schooland district leaders, elected officials, the media, teach-ers, and other kinds of nonprofit organizations. Theliterature identifies several strategies, outlined in thissection, that effective organizing groups use to winmeaningful education reforms.

Working at Multiple LevelsSchools are where the buck stops in terms of educa-tional change. Personalized instruction, improvedschool climate, and stronger teacher-student relation-ships all play out at the school and classroom levels.For this reason, many organizing efforts begin aroundimproving conditions at a local school site.

But organizing groups often find that changes at thedistrict or state level are necessary to provide theresources or flexibility necessary to implement school-level campaigns (Mediratta, Shah & McAlister 2009a).Districts establish policies that constrain schools’choices on curriculum, staffing arrangements, andafter-school programming and control the bulk of theresources flowing to schools. States have taken on ever-larger roles in setting standards and establishingaccountability regimes, particularly since the passage ofthe No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. State depart-ments of education have access to larger pots of fund-ing than do districts, and organizing campaigns oftentarget state legislatures for additional appropriations.

Community organizers in Chicago followed such apath after identifying high turnover of teachers, due totheir lack of experience with and connection to thecommunity, as a major problem. Drawing on a suc-cessful teacher preparation program developed by theLogan Square Neighborhood Association (LSNA),Chicago ACORN called for creating a statewide “growyour own” teacher pipeline strategy to train teacherparaprofessionals and community residents to becometeachers in their neighborhood schools. ACORNworked with LSNA and the Cross City Campaign forUrban School Reform to assemble a coalition of com-munity organizing groups, district officials, leadersfrom university teacher preparation programs, theteachers unions, and elected officials to advocate forthe statewide teacher pipeline program. This coalitionsecured passage of the 2004 Grow Your Own TeachersAct and, as of 2008, had won $11 million in successiveappropriations to support the program (McAlister,Mediratta & Shah 2009).

Working through Alliances and CoalitionsCommunity organizing groups build power and theability to act at multiple levels by developing allianceswith a range of stakeholders and participating in for-mal coalitions. By working jointly with advocacyorganizations, teachers, education officials, researchers,businesses, and other stakeholders on issues of com-mon concern, community organizers build collectivepower and gain access to decision-makers at the local,state, and national levels. These intentional cross-sec-tor relationships not only lead to new alliances, butalso demonstrate broad agreement for proposals forchange. The research literature provides excellentexamples of alliance and coalition building (see sidebaron page 6).


Using Data and ResearchBecause of the complexity of school reform, research iscrucially important in education organizing. Commu-nity organizing groups use research as a tool to definepolicy problems, advance political proposals, litigate,and monitor the implementation of laws. Many

groups have enduring relationships with university-based researchers who provide access to data on schoolperformance and current scholarship on educationissues. In addition, there are research, reform support,and intermediary organizations (including AISR)around the nation that provide varied kinds of supportto community organizations (Renée 2006).

In California, for example, the Education Justice Col-laborative, a collaboration of organizing, advocacy, andlegal groups, is facilitated by the Institute for Educa-tion, Democracy, and Access (IDEA) at UCLA. IDEAresearchers conduct data analyses, identify relevantscholarship, and translate research into layperson-friendly formats to support the member groups of thecollaborative (Oakes et al. 2008). In Philadelphia,scholars at Research for Action provided research thatyouth leaders needed in order to craft a successful cam-paign to divide two under-served Philadelphia highschools into campuses of small, themed academies ofno more than 400 to 500 students. The extensiveresearch process included surveying students to gathertheir ideas for a redesigned campus, researching bestpractices for small schools, and traveling to four citiesto learn from their experiences (Suess & Lewis 2007).

Balancing Collaboration and PressureMost organizing groups use a mix of collaboration andpressure – resorting to public, contentious action onlywhen negotiation and collaboration have failed (FordFoundation & Center for Community Change 2008;Gold, Simon & Brown 2002). Because of the complex-ity of the education system and the need to sustainmultiple facets of reform simultaneously (Coburn2003), organizing groups need long-term access to education decision-makers and experts. Organizinggroups have discovered the need to shift between adver-

In New York City, parents organized for the ouster of the unre-sponsive principal of a low-performing school, but were unableto influence the selection of a new principal. The parent leadersrealized that they needed to build the power to influence district-level decision making and formed a collaborative withfive other community-based organizations in the area calledCC9 (Zachary & olatoye 2001). The collaboration resulted inseveral major policy victories, including a lead teacher programto improve staff development and retention in ten schools. Later,when control of New York City schools was consolidated underthe mayor and schools chancellor and local districts were abolished, CC9 leaders realized that they needed to expandtheir reach even further. So CC9 joined forces in 2006 withother neighborhood organizing groups to form the citywide New York City Coalition for Educational Justice. Similarly, youthorganizing groups have formed the citywide Urban Youth Collaborative to advocate for the needs of under-served highschool students across New York City.

In Los Angeles, conversations between youth and parent organ-izations, the United Way, and a Latino advocacy group led tothe formation of Communities for Educational Equity (CEE). Even-tually, CEE included twenty-five parent and student organizinggroups, universities, civil rights and advocacy organizations, andrepresentatives of elected education officials. The coalition putthe weight of research, advocacy, and well-established civilrights organizations behind local youth organizing efforts. Thepowerful coalition then successfully pushed for expanded accessto college prep courses in Los Angeles Unified School District.The result was passage of a school board resolution mandatingcollege preparatory curriculum as the standard curriculum for all students in the district. CEE has continued to monitor the dis-trict’s implementation of the policy to ensure that the intent of theresolution to increase equity is met (United Way of Greater LosAngeles 2007).

Building Alliances and Coalitions


sarial relationships and tactics that facilitate construc-tive dialogue around school reform (AISR 2010b).

At its core, community organizing is about creatingsafe, high-quality schools. The results of such workbenefit not only students, but also teachers who engagein the day-to-day work of educating students. Much ofschool-based organizing is about transforming the cul-ture of schools so that parents, teachers, principals, andthe larger community work together for the benefit ofchildren. For these reasons, organizing groups seekcommon ground and cultivate collaborations andalliances with teachers, school administrators, and district- and state-level officials. Many of these con-stituencies describe organizing groups as capable alliesfor advancing reforms that will benefit under-servedstudents (e.g., Mediratta, Shah & McAlister 2009b).

While collaboration and alliance building are criticalto organizing, so is the willingness to engage in con-tentious action when necessary. Yet, reliance on collab-orative or pressure tactics is not either/or. Publicactions like letter-writing campaigns, accountabilitysessions, and large turnout at school board meetingsare tools that organizing groups use to demonstrate thepower of their base and establish themselves as legiti-mate education stakeholders (Mediratta, Shah &McAlister 2009a). Organizing groups are not unwill-ing to use public action to pressure or even embarrassofficials, but they are strategic about when, where, andhow they use these strategies. Organizing groups existto further the interests of marginalized communities;they prioritize the needs of their constituency abovetheir relationships with allies. The ability to publiclymobilize large numbers of people with common inter-ests and attract media attention is a core source of thepower of community organizing to make demands forequity and accountability.

The Challenges of Community Organizingfor Education Reform As an “outside” strategy led by communities withcomparatively few material resources and a history ofdisenfranchisement, community organizing faces allthe daunting, well-documented barriers to sustainedreform that other school reform movements face,along with additional obstacles. This section highlightsthe challenges of organizing across multiple dimen-sions; a full discussion can be found in the researchreport in the Community Organizing as an EducationReform Strategy Series.

The Importance of RelationshipsRelationships with educators take time to develop.They depend on a mutual understanding of the verydifferent cultures of organizing and public educationand are easily damaged. Whereas organizing values dis-tributed leadership and decision making by consensus,schools and districts are often hierarchical and deci-sions are continually passed up the chain of command.At the school level, teachers often feel disempoweredand fight to be viewed as professionals. Teachers some-times see the demands of organizing groups for greaterdecision making as a threat to their autonomy (Shirley2002).

Winning an education campaign often depends onbuilding agreements between multiple stakeholders(e.g., principals, school boards, superintendents, may-ors, state boards of education, and legislatures) (Medi-ratta, Shah & McAlister 2009a). Many districts faceinstability and turmoil – the average tenure of anurban superintendent is three and a half years (Councilof the Great City Schools, 2008/2009), and principals,especially in struggling schools, also turn over fre-quently. Building sustainable agreements across somany changing stakeholders, each with his or her ownagenda, presents a significant challenge to communityorganizers.


The Limits of Organizational CapacityCommunity organizing groups are often held up asgenerating large returns on the investments of founda-tions – they win major changes in policy, attract mediaattention, and generate social and community capacitywith a handful of staff and tiny budgets. But numer-ous organizational factors strain the ability of groupsto be effective: the staff is small (and generally lowpaid); the work of the organization is carried out byvolunteer leaders with families and work responsibili-ties; and there is a need to continually replace parentand student leaders as the students finish high school.

Partners such as universities and foundations can playa key role in the success of organizing campaigns byhelping to build organizational capacity. Partners canprovide community organizations with resources,research, and trainings on strategic communicationsand leadership development and can create opportuni-ties for organizations to network and learn from eachother. Funders can also help by increasing the socialcapital of organizations. By connecting organizationsto economic and social capital, funders help to levelthe playing field for parents and residents in low-income communities by providing them with the kindof skills, knowledge, and resources that are readilyavailable to residents of affluent communities.

There is evidence that funders working with eachother and with other institutional partners can act as a particularly powerful support for communityorganizing. For example, numerous local and nationalfoundations joined government agencies in supportingthe development of the New York Coalition for Edu-cation Justice and the Urban Youth Collaborative. As a result, both coalitions have stable resources to mean-ingfully and regularly engage in school-district decisionmaking.

Insufficient Density of Organizations Working TogetherWhen there is a lack of sufficient density of organiza-tions in one geographic area, building power and capi-tal through collaboration is particularly challenging.During the interviews for the scan of organizing inNew England that is part of the Community Organiz-ing as an Education Reform Strategy Series,8 organizersnoted that foundations often view funding multipleorganizations to do education work in the same city as a duplication of efforts, but that it is difficult fororganizing to have an impact until it attains sufficientdensity for groups to work together and mobilize alarge enough constituency to shift power dynamics.

Collaboration is particularly challenging in rural areas.Rural organizing, like rural school reform, is largelyignored in research literature and under-funded inpractice. National organizing networks like the Indus-trial Areas Foundation (IAF) and People ImprovingCommunities through Organizing (PICO) are impor-tant sources of training, leadership development,research expertise, and knowledge about promisingpractices, yet none of the national networks have muchpresence outside of cities.

The Critical Role of Funders Existing academic literature does not report muchabout the difference between community-initiated ver-sus foundation-initiated organizing efforts, nor is thereextensive research on the role of foundations in sup-porting and shaping community organizing for schoolreform. However, based on our extensive experience inthis field, we know that the role of foundations hasbeen critical to developing and supporting communityorganizing for school reform. For example, Communi-ties for Public Education Reform (CPER), a coalitionof funders, works to leverage investments from multi-ple foundations in order to strategically focus on devel-oping community organizing potential in specific citiesaround the nation. This funder-led initiative has beencritical to the field of community organizing – many

8 See <www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/NMEF.php>.


of the successful campaigns described in the researchliterature received funding and capacity-building assis-tance from CPER.

For collaboration between community organizationsand foundations to succeed, attention to building rela-tionships early in the process of researching and shap-ing reform agendas is crucial. In addition, fundersneed to be able to weather some of the more con-frontational relationships that community organiza-tions engage in and trust in the longer-term process anorganization must go through to create a space foritself in a policy-making venue. While this process isuncomfortable at times, our experience and researchindicate that these moments are part of what Tarrow(1998) describes as a cycle of contention: some momentsare full of conflict and others are focused on collabora-tion.

The power of community organizers lies in placing theeducational needs of young people above everythingelse, and they use a variety of strategies to accomplishthat goal. By understanding this, funders can see com-munity organizing as part of the portfolio of strategiesthey fund – knowing that the “critical friend” relation-ships between community organizations and otherstakeholders add depth, quality, and permanence notjust to the immediate organizing, but also to the long-term sustainability of school reform efforts.

Community Organizing as an Education Reform StrategyWith all its challenges, community organizing ishardly a magic bullet for all that ails public education.But community organizing offers a unique set of effec-tive strategies for achieving school improvement inhigh-need schools and districts, especially in partner-ship with other reform strategies. The research suggeststhat community organizing for school reform has thepotential to advance equity, create innovative solutionsthat reflect the interests and experiences of disenfran-chised communities, and build the long-term socialcapital of under-represented communities both to sup-port schools and districts and to hold them account-able for improving achievement.

Education organizing is as much about building coali-tions with partners like school districts and policy-makers as it is about protesting against them. In theend, most of the people who work in school systems –administrators, teachers, and staff, as well as the com-munities that are served by the school system – share adeep commitment to improving the life opportunitiesof young people. Some of the most effective campaignsfor equitable education reform succeed by leveragingthis shared commitment in order to develop the publicwill needed to create – then sustain – improvement inthe nation’s most under-served schools.


ReferencesAnnenberg Institute for School Reform. 2010a. Creating and Sustaining Public Demand and Support.PowerPoint presentation. Providence, RI: BrownUniversity, Annenberg Institute for School Reformand Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

Annenberg Institute for School Reform. 2010b. Effec-tive Community Outreach. PowerPoint presentation.Providence, RI: Brown University, Annenberg Insti-tute for School Reform.

Anyon, J. 2005. Radical Possibilities: Public Policy,Urban Education, and a New Social Movement. NewYork: Routledge.

Coburn, C. 2003. “Rethinking Scale: Moving beyondNumbers to Deep and Lasting Change,” EducationalResearcher 32, no. 6:3–12.

Council of the Great City Schools. 2008/2009. UrbanIndicator; Urban School Superintendents: Characteris-tics, Tenure, and Salary Sixth Survey and Report (Win-ter). Washington, DC: CGCS.

Delgado Gaitan, C. 2001. The Power of Community:Mobilizing for Family and Schooling. Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Della Porta, D., and M. Diani. 1999. Social Move-ments: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Evans, M. 2009. “Inside Education Organizing: Learn-ing to Work for Educational Change.” Ph.D. Disser-tation. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Ford Foundation and the Center for CommunityChange. 2008. Funding Community Organizing:Social Change through Civic Participation. New York:Ford Foundation and the Center for CommunityChange.

Gold, E., E. Simon, and C. Brown. 2002. StrongNeighborhoods, Strong Schools: Successful CommunityOrganizing for School Reform. Chicago: Cross CityCampaign for Urban School Reform.

Kluger, R. 2004. Simple Justice: The History of Brownv. Board of Education and Black America’s Strugglefor Equality (rev. and expanded ed.). New York:Knopf.

McAlister, S., K. Mediratta, and S. Shah. 2009.Rethinking the Teacher Pipeline for an Urban PublicSchool System: Chicago ACORN. Providence, RI:Brown University, Annenberg Institute for SchoolReform. Available for download at <www.annenber-ginstitute.org/WeDo/Mott_Chicago.php>.

Mediratta, K., S. Shah, and S. McAlister. 2009a. Com-munity Organizing for Stronger Schools: Strategies andSuccesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Mediratta, K., S. Shah, and S. McAlister. 2009b.Building Partnerships to Reinvent School Culture:Austin Interfaith. Providence, RI: Brown University,Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Available fordownload at <www.annenberginstitute.org/WeDo/Mott_Austin.php>.

Mintrop, H., and G. L. Sunderman. 2009. “Pre-dictable Failure of Federal Sanctions-DrivenAccountability for School Improvement and WhyWe May Retain It Anyway,” Educational Researcher38:353. Abstract available online at <http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/5/353>.

Oakes, J., M. Renée, J. Rogers, and M. Lipton. 2008.“Research and Community Organizing as Tools forDemocratizing Educational Policymaking.” In TheFuture of Educational Change: International Perspec-tives, edited by C. Sugrue, pp. 136–154. Abingdon,VA: Routledge.

Oakes, J., and J. Rogers. 2006. Learning Power: SocialInquiry, Grassroots Organizing, and Educational Jus-tice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Orr, M. 1999. Black Social Capital: The Politics ofSchool Reform in Baltimore, 1986–1998. Lawrence,KS: University Press of Kansas.


Payne, C. M. 2008. So Much Reform, So Little Change:The Persistence of Failure in Urban Schools. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Renée, M. 2006. “Knowledge, Power, and EducationJustice: How Social Movement Organizations UseResearch to Influence Education Policy.” Unpub-lished dissertation. Los Angeles: UCLA.

Renée, M., K. Welner, and J. Oakes. 2010. “SocialMovement Organizing and Equity-Focused Educa-tional Change: Shifting the Zone of Mediation.” In International Handbook of Educational Change(2nd ed.), edited by A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman,M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins. New York: Springer.

Shah, S., K. Mediratta, and S. McAlister. 2009. Secur-ing a College Prep Curriculum for All Students: Com-munity Coalition, Los Angeles. Providence, RI: BrownUniversity, Annenberg Institute for School Reform.Available for download at <www.annenberginsti-tute.org/WeDo/Mott_LA.php>.

Shirley, D. 1997. Community Organizing for UrbanSchool Reform. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Shirley, D. 2002. Valley Interfaith and School Reform:Organizing for Power in South Texas. Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.

Shirley, D. 2009. “Community Organizing and Edu-cational Change: A Reconnaissance,” Journal of Educational Change 10:229–237.

Suess, G. E., and K. S. Lewis. 2007. “The Time isNow: Youth Organize to Transform PhiladelphiaSchools,” Children, Youth and Environments 16, no. 2.

Tarrow, S. G. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Move-ments and Contentious Politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge,England and New York: Cambridge University Press.

United Way of Greater Los Angeles. 2007. The A-GStory: Lessons from a Grassroots Movement for Educa-tional Equity in Los Angeles. Los Angeles: United Wayof Greater Los Angeles.

Warren, M. 2001. Dry Bones Rattling: CommunityBuilding to Revitalize American Democracy. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Zachary, E., and o. olatoye. 2001. A Case Study: Com-munity Organizing for School Improvement in theSouth Bronx. New York: New York University, Insti-tute for Education and Social Policy.


1250 Hancock StreetQuincy, MA 02169

www.nmefdn.org

Providence

Brown UniversityBox 1985Providence, RI 02912

New York

233 Broadway, Suite 720New York, NY 10279

www.annenberginstitute.org

the strengths and challenges of community …. aisr staff were instrumental in the formation of the...

Documents