Citation
Restructuring a traditional junior high school into a community-based intergenerational learning center

Material Information

Title:
Restructuring a traditional junior high school into a community-based intergenerational learning center a case study of public agency partnerships
Creator:
Arthur, Gary A
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 188 leaves : forms ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Educational innovations -- United States ( lcsh )
Community and school -- United States ( lcsh )
Educational innovations -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Community and school -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Community and school ( fast )
Educational innovations ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
Case studies. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Case studies ( fast )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Colorado at Denver, 1993.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, School of Education and Human Development, Administration, Curriculum, and Supervision.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Gary A. Arthur.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
28863493 ( OCLC )
ocm28863493

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

RESTRUCTURING A TRADITIONAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL INTO A COMMUNITY-BASED INTERGENERATIONAL LEARNING CENTER: A CASE STUDY OF PUBLIC AGENCY PARTNERSHIPS by Gary A. Arthur B.A., The Ohio State University, 1970 M.A., University of Colorado at Springs, 1980 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Administration, Curriculum, and Supervision I I I 1993 I

PAGE 2

by Gary A. Arthur All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Gary A. Arthur has been approved for the School of Education by Date

PAGE 4

Arthur, Gary A. (Ph.D., Administration, Supervision, and Curriculum) Restructuring a Traditional Junior High School into a Community-Based Intergenerational Learning Center: A Case Study in Public Agency Partnerships Thesis directed by Professor Paul Bauman. ABSTRACT This study analyzed public agency partnerships by comparing theoretical and research perspectives on partnerships with an existing public agency partnership to determine the potential for improving public education. A case study of a partnership in Colorado was conducted with findings applied to the literature on partnerships. Results of the application are reflected in the conclusions of the study. This perspective provided a frame of reference for comment on the potential for public agency partnerships to improve public education. The case study approach, used in the Colorado portion of the study, included both qualitative and

PAGE 5

quantitative methods. A case description presents findings describing how the school was restructured, the motives of the partners for entering into partnership, and the level of interactiveness of the partnership. A questionnaire was administered to 65 project participants to determine the perceived school improvement resulting from changes to the school attributed to the partnership. Findings of the survey indicate that service delivery and facility changes are most likely to improve the school. The study generated the following conclusions clustered into two sets. Set One Conclusions concerned the motives of the partners for entering into partnership: 1) There are primary and secondary motives for entering into partnership. 2) Primary motives are stimulated by the environment, involve issues which cannot be accomplished by the agencies acting independently, and relate to the organizational mission of the parent organization. 3) Secondary motives develop simultaneous to or after the partnership is established, provide direction for the partnership, and are responsible for school improvement. Set Two Conclusions relate to v

PAGE 6

interagency partnerships and school restructuring: 1) Restructuring the service delivery mechanism and facility of the school will result in school improvement. 2) Partnerships add responsibilities to administrators which may leave school staff feeling unsupported and alienated from the administration. 3) Partnerships take time to implement structural changes to the 4) Restructuring of the school will result in school improvement. 5) Char-ges in personnel create a potential fer partnership failure if administrators are hired who do not support or understand the partnership. 6) Interagency partnerships offer strong pOtential for promoting school improvement. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Paul Bauman vi --4

PAGE 7

CONTENTS CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction and Background to the Problem ........................... 1 Statement of the Colorado Springs Problem .................................. 6 Purpose of the Study .................... 8 Scope and Limitations of the Study ...... 10 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............... 13 Educational Partnerships ................ 13 Educational Reform, Restructuring, and School Partnerships ............ 15 Categories of Educational Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . 16 School-Business Partnerships .. 16 School-University Partnerships.18 School-Parent/Community Partnerships .................. 19 School-Public Agency Partnerships .................. 19 Partnerships for Improving Schools ....... 21 Interactive Partnerships ........... 21 Continua of Relationships ......... 22 Growth Through Interaction ......... 26

PAGE 8

Interactive Partnerships as Processes for School Reform ........ 26 Summary of Interactive Partnerships ....................... 28 Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) and Intergovernmental Management (IGM) in Education ............................... 29 Concepts of IGR and IGM Applied to Education .......................... 30 Devolution .................... 31 Networks Among Governmental Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 IGR for Effective Service Delivery ...................... 35 IGR and IGM Decreasing Competition for Funds ......... 36 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 I I I METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 Overview ................................. 40 The Research Approach: Qualitative Case Study .............................. 41 Research Design .......................... 46 Units of Analysis ........................ 4 7 Principles of Data Collection to be Utilized ................................. 48 Qualitative Data Collection .............. 49 Primary Data Sources ............... 50 Data from Documents ........... 50 viii

PAGE 9

Data from Archival Records ....................... 50 Data from Direct Observation ................... 50 Participant Observation ....... 51 Physical Artifacts ............ 51 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . 51 Qualitative Data Processing and Analysis ....................... 56 Evaluation Questions ............... 57 Interim Data Reduction ............. 58 Post Data Collection Reduction ..... 59 Level One Results Presentation: Case Description ................... 60 Quantitative Data Collection ........... 60 Questionnaire ..................... 60 Statement construction ........ 61 Pretesting . . . . . . . . . 61 Population.. . . . . . . . . 62 Scale ......................... 64 Distribution. . . . . . . . . 64 Quantitative Data Processing and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 Questionnaire Analysis ............. 66 ix

PAGE 10

IV. THE COLORADO CASE STUDY: FINDINGS ........ 68 Introduction... . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Case Description ........................ 70 Results: School Improvement ............. 114 Survey Results ..................... 114 General Aggregate Results ..... 114 General Mean .................. 115 Statement Analysis ............ 115 Site Cohort Analysis .......... 117 Position/Relationship Cohort Analysis . . . . . . . 118 School Improvement/Adverse Effects from Open-ended Questions .......... 118 Open-ended Survey Question Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . 118 School Improvement ............ 118 Adverse Effects Upon the School ........................ 120 Other Quantitative Measures ........ 121 Student Achievement Test Scores ........................ 121 Student Attendance ............ 122 Programs and Services ......... 122 X

PAGE 11

v. APPLICATION I CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS .. 123 Introduction... . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 The Nature of the Partnership ........... 124 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Conclusions: Set One ............... 128 Conclusions: Set Two ............... 130 New Perspectives ................... 131 Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4 How Can This Type of Partnership Improve Public Education ................. 142 Implications for Future Research ........ 148 APPENDIX A. EVALUATION QUESTIONS ....................... 151 B. EVIDENTIARY DATA BASE ....................... 155 C. INTERVIEW GUIDES ............................ 159 D. QUESTIONNAIRE ............................... 162 E. TABLES ...................................... 166 Notes .............................................. 181 References .. ... ................................... 183 xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction and Background to the Problem Since the report A Nation at Risk was presented in 1983 (National Commission on Excellence), with its indication of a rising tide of mediocrity in education, there has been a strong interest in improving America's schools. Several initiatives have been established to promote this interest, of these, a number have focused upon schools establishing partnerships with businesses and other public agencies. Through the 1980's and early 1990's, the number of these partnerships have steadily increased (Doyle, 1987). There is a plethora of descriptive writing about partnerships between schools and the private sector which is mostly confined to cooperative agreements with business, parents, and communities. Limited research has been conducted ... on the mechanisms by 1

PAGE 13

which the business community expresses its interest in the schools ... and much of what is available addresses rather narrow questions regarding the formation and operation of school-business partnerships" (McGuire, 1989, p. 110). The same scenario is true of research relating to partnerships with parents, communities, and universities, and likewise, there has been very limited research regarding governmental interagency partnerships in cooperation with public schools. Although partnerships are discussed in the national literature as a way to improve schools, there is a paucity of research relating the effects of partnerships to school improvement. Speaking of partnerships and their potential for impacting schools, Goodlad (1987) provides a perspective on what is needed for school improvement in America's public schools: Three needs dominate the national agenda for school improvement, each best met through local initiative: (1) enlightened dialogue regarding the nature of education; (2) policies that support good education in schools; (3) well-designed strategies for school improvement. Partnership programs promote all three simultaneously (p. iii). 2

PAGE 14

Colorado Springs School District 11, the third largest school district in Colorado, has undertaken efforts to reform and restructure over the past ten years. Included in these efforts is the enlistment of business, government agencies, local community organizations, and parents as partners. Among the methods to encourage the undertaking of reforms and establishment of partnerships were the development of the School District Eleven Foundation, the establishment of the Office of School/Community Relations (OSCR); and within the past five years, the encouragement for individual schools to seek partnerships with both individuals and other organizations. The foundation served to attract funding from various sources to support the reform effort, improve educational programs and practices, and provide financial resources in times of financial scarcity. OSCR served as a clearing house for partnerships and worked to solicit new arrangements as well as foster the existing ones. This office functions at the district level, but is responsive to individual school needs. The autonomy for several district schools to fundamentally restructure their 3

PAGE 15

organizations to meet the needs of the community, the school district, and the particular school was encouraged by the School Board, Superintendent of Schools and the central office administration. In a local initiative, the first major reorganizational effort of the district's 52 schools came from West Junior High School. In the spring of 1990, the architectural firm, Van Sant Group, was selected as project architects and initial design was begun to transform West Junior High School into a community life center. In the spring of 1991, Colorado Springs School District 11, the City of Colorado Springs, and the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency entered into a formal partnership for a structural addition to West Junior High School. In a long term public inter-agency agreement, West Junior High School was restructured into a community-based intergenerational learning center (ILC) where preschool, middle level, and senior citizen education was merged into one facility. The Colorado Springs Northern Light, a community-based newspaper in an interview with West Junior High School Principal Patricia Russell, 4

PAGE 16

identified the ILC as an educational revolution. "Faced with national calls for educational change and local pleas for a community center plus a poor economic climate, Colorado Springs and District 11 officials joined forces. What has emerged is a concept that will place West Junior High School and Colorado Springs in the national front line for quality educational programs and community enhancement" (Russell, 1991, p. 1). As the promotional news releases and word-of-mouth promises advocated, this new concept of schooling would interconnect the community and the school allowing for many services to be provided at one site. These services include educational classes for preschoolers, adolescents, adults, and senior citizens, as well as recreational opportunities such as a community theatre, outdoor experiences, fine arts, and a teen center. Health and human service activities would offer crisis intervention, health screenings, fitness classes, senior meals, and health fairs. In short, the ILC would bring together many community services, now provided by independent agencies. Public monies would be saved by combining services at the 5

PAGE 17

facilities, management, and human resources levels. The Colorado Springs partnership is representative of a type of partnership which there is very little published research to date. A case study of the partnership among the City of Colorado Springs, School District 11, and the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency in the development of this restructuring effort is one portion of this study. Statement of the Colorado Springs Problem The implementation of this project was through a partnership between two public agencies and one nonprofit non-government agency: a city government, a public school district, and a regional fund-raising organization. The City of Colorado Springs was the local governmental agency consisting of the mayor and city council, with its various sub-agencies which implement the policies and procedures of these elected officials. The City of Colorado Springs was the largest non-military employer in the Pikes Peak region. Colorado Springs School District 11 was the primary school district within the City of Colorado 6

PAGE 18

Springs with approximately 30,000 students enrolled in grades K-12 and employing nearly 3,000 persons. It was the second largest non-military employer in the region. The Pikes Peak Community Action Agency (PPCAA) was the main fund-distributing agency for the Pikes Peak Region. It was a main channel for United Way funding and also sought revenue from local business, corporate, and other private sources. This partnership was structured such that each party had a fiduciary responsibility during the design phase. The school district provided the land and the main facility located at West Junior High School. The City of Colorado Springs and the PPCAA provided funding for a $650,000 structural addition to the school which allowed all of the combined services to be housed at one site. The joint venture among these three agencies has resulted in a governmental interagency partnership which was exceptional in its conception, structure, goals, and potential for longevity. This fact was clearly demonstrated by the partnership winning an award for excellence in partnerships and community development from the National League of Cities and the Principal winning the Governor's Award 7

PAGE 19

for Excellence in Education (see note 1). West Junior High School, in this restructuring effort, represented a governmental interagency partnership of which there was little documented historical precedent, theoretical foundation, or research to date. The case study of this partnership provided analysis of a newly formed interagency partnership for comparison with the national literature. Purpose of the Study This study analyzed public agency partnerships by comparing theoretical and research perspectives on partnerships with an existing public agency partnership to determine the potential for improving public education. A case study of a partnership in Colorado was conducted with findings applied to 1) a published theory of partnerships, interactive partnerships (Jones & Maloy, 1988, pp. 10-11), the motives for entering into partnership (Jones & Maloy, 1988, pp. 6-7), and 2) what the literature says nationally about partnerships. This perspective 8

PAGE 20

provided a frame of reference for comment on the potential for public agency partnerships to improve public education. There were four purposes of this study: 1) to examine the nature of the Colorado Springs partnership, 2) to determine how the school was restructured as a result of the partnership, 3) to examine if the school may improve as a result of the restructuring, 4) to examine how this type of partnership can be useful in improving public education. Examining the nature of the partnership, as used in purpose 1, applies the ideas of 1) interactive partnerships (Jones & Maloy, 1988), and_ 2) partner motives for entering into partnerships (Jones & Maloy, 1988) with the Colorado Springs partnership. Interactive partnerships and motives for entering into partnership are described in Chapter 2. Restructuring, as used in purpose 2, are the changes in the school's financial, facility, service delivery, and governance structures which resulted from the partnership. School improvement, as used in purpose 3, are perceptions of partnership participants 9

PAGE 21

regarding the amount of school improvement which may result from the restructuring of the school and the motives for each partner for entering into the partnership. Regarding purpose 4, the results of the school's restructuring and perceived school improvement are then compared with the literature on partnerships to examine how this type of partnership can be useful in improving public education. Scope and Limitations of the Study This study analyzed the partnership in a twentynine month time period beginning during Spring Semester of 1990, with the start of discussions among partners, and ending during Fall Semester, 1992, six months past the grand opening of the center. In the course of this inquiry, data was collected from the prehistory of the partnership (that time before the formal relationship was established) through the identified study period. There were three limitations on the study: 1) a single-case design, 2) a potential for bias due to the relationship between the author and the school, and 10

PAGE 22

3) the time sequence of the study. Single case designs in qualitative research are generalizable to theoretical propositions (Yin, 1989) and literature related to the phenomena. In this case the goal of the investigator was to expand knowledge about interagency partnerships through analysis of one partnership. It was the intention of the investigator to add to the existing body of knowledge regarding partnerships. The investigator was directly involved in decision making with the construction process thereby gathering data by the participant-observation method. Other meetings observed were most appropriately aligned with the direct observation method at the investigator's choice. The investigator did serve the school in an administrative capacity as assistant principal, but was not an active participant in the decision making of the partnership except as described during the construction process. Thus, specific strategies for inquiry and study were planned and implemented to eliminate researcher bias in the investigative process. The time-sequence of this study did impose a 11

PAGE 23

limitation in that the partnership will continue past the 29 month time-frame and possibly continue for many years. New developments in the partnership can only be predicted and not substantiated by fact. Thus, this study is limited by the continuing nature of the partnership, however it explains the design phase as a way of contributing to the work in schools across the country. 12

PAGE 24

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE Educational Partnerships Partnerships exist when the public and private sector enter into cooperative agreements with schools to provide goods, services, technical assistance, and money (Heaviside & Farris, 1989). Impetus for partnerships comes from several factors. First, public school funding is falling short in its ability to meet the 'financial needs of our schools. School district personnel are finding that: ... traditional approaches and channels to local, state, and federal funding are not sufficient to meet community or public expectations for school improvement. As a result, educators are prompted to seek additional funding, equipment, materials, and human resources to provide long range, consistent, and formalized support to the school district, its staff, and its students (Otterbourg, 1986, p. 11). 13

PAGE 25

Second, new instructional goals and teaching strategies are needed to meet the influx of educationally disadvantaged and non-English speaking students into the educational system. These changing times require the schools to meet increasingly difficult challenges which" ... school people already know that schools by themselves don't have the capability to meet the unique and demanding needs of students" (Clark, 1988, p. 33). Third, reports from various national commissions, task forces, and boards identify the need for our educational system to reform and restructure so that we may remain competitive in the global economy (College Board, 1984, Committee for Economic Development, 1985; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 1983; Task Force on Education for Economic Growth, 1983). Thus, ... schools are finding it increasingly difficult to close the gap between current efforts to prepare students for work and the skills needed in the workplace" (Clark, 1988, p. 33). Partnership support from both public and private sources has been seen as revitalizing our 14

PAGE 26

schools by reforming and restructuring them to meet these growing challenges. Educational Reform. Restructuring, and School Partnerships The first wave of reform has manifested itself in public education with a decade of new educational policies intended to improve school governance and the quality of teachers in the teaching force, to increase the rigor in academics, and to improve and build upon our knowledge of student performance. "Never before had states made so many changes of educational policy in such a short period of time" (Fuhrman, 1988, p. 63). Among these many changes is the belief that "nothing short of fundamental change affecting the practices of everyone in the school will suffice," that ... ultimately what must be changed is the way schools are governed," and "the relationship of schools to both their external and internal environments is so fundamentally flawed that change in how they are governed is essential for significant school improvement of any sort-curricular, 15

PAGE 27

instructional, and so on" (Raywid, 1990, p. 152). Educational partnerships can serve as catalysts for school reform and restructuring in a cooperative effort (Stickel, 1987). The type, amount, and intensity of the reforms promoted by these partnerships are directly related to the organizational category of the partnership. Categories of Educational Partnerships An assortment of partnership arrangements connecting the public schools with both private and public organizations has developed over the past few years. These arrangements fall into four broad categories which are based upon organizational orientation of the partners. These four categories are school-business partnerships, school-university partnerships, school-community partnerships, and school-public agency partnerships. School-business partnerships. School-business partnerships are those relationships coupling businesses with educational institutions and systems (Lund, 1988). Generally, these relationships promote 16

PAGE 28

business sharing physical resources, money, and/or human resources with a school in both long and short term arrangements (Heaviside & Ferris, 1989; Mann, 1984). Often, business may go one step further by playing the role of advocate for special causes (Mann, 1987), thereby influencing the educational process. Many of these partnerships are initiated and remain at the superintendent of school's level (Mann, 1987), but many may also be found at the school level as well as at the program, classroom, and individual teacher level. They may be characterized by "adopt-a-school," "mentoring," or other programs that connect one or more businesses with one or more schools (Barton, 1983; Lund, 1988; McGuire, 1989). Mann (1987) has identified four "hallmarks" of business involvement with schools: a coordinating structure; multiple purposes; multiple players; and stability. Much of the logic behind this litany is that schools need more than any one partnership can provide. This, coupled with the fact that most private sponsorships are conditional and based upon specific purposes behind the involvement, supports the fact that most of these are specific activities in project form (Otterbourg, 17

PAGE 29

1986; Mann, 1987). Thus, when the project is complete, often the partnership terminates. The number of partnerships in 1989 was estimated to be 149,000 with the number expected to grow in the future. As Meranda (1989) reports, business partnerships have been found to exist in 40% of the schools which represents a 23% increase over the past few years. School-university partnerships. These partnerships are cooperative agreements between schools and institutions of higher education implemented for a variety of purposes benefitting both the school and/or the university or college. Examples range in purpose from services for "at-risk" students in the public schools to programs offering college credit for high school students (Wilber, Lambert, & Young, 1988). Outcomes include enhanced learning opportunities for students, increased motivation for students, and rejuvenation and higher morale of the faculties. Maeroff (1983) offered a variety of reasons and benefits for school/college partnerships to exist. Among them was the fact that it can be beneficial for 18

PAGE 30

both institutions to collaborate to determine content, skills, and requirements for entrance into college. Hence, disadvantaged students could be identified at an early age so as to obtain the necessary assistance in making the transition from high school to college. Programs for both beginning and senior teachers could be developed collaboratively by schools and colleges. Curricular overlap and duplication could be eliminated by the establishment of transition schools. Cultural enrichment could enhance the education of high school students through school and college partnerships. School-parent/community partnerships. These partnerships consist of a variety of local arrangements between the schools and individuals or organizations within the community. Community involvement may be through human service agencies working in conjunction with the school to meet student and family needs; parent involvement in the schools; an amalgam of community organizations such as service clubs, foundations, and non-profit organizations; and school committees. School-public agency partnerships. These partnerships are agreements between individual schools 19

PAGE 31

or school districts and governmental agencies operating in the public domain. Examples of public agencies are local, city, regional, or state governments or governmental units; foundations, trust institutions, and other service organizations using public and private funds in the public interest. School districts and often individual schools form cooperative agreements with human service agencies to provide integrated services or school-linked social services within the school setting (Bauman, 1992). For example, in this integrated services approach, human service agencies provide programs designed to meet a variety of individual student and family needs at the school site. Day care, health services, counseling, social services, and a variety of other agency interventions are provided at the school site allowing teachers and professionals from these agencies to interact with each other as well as with children of the school and their families. There are several influences shaping these partnership arrangements. The idea of child centered reforms, as described by King and McGuire (1992), impact educational policy by streamlining public 20

PAGE 32

services to better serve children. This streamlining of services translates from the policy level to the school and program level with increased benefits for children and families. Partnerships for Improving Schools The study of partnerships in the restructuring of public schools has been addressed by Jones and Maloy in their book Partnerships for Improving Schools (1988) from the perspective of partnerships between schools and universities, parent organizations, businesses, and human service agencies. One key component of their theory was the idea of "interactive partnerships." This concept provided a perspective on partnerships from a "relationship" standpoint and addressed school improvement resultant from the partnership. Interactive Partnerships Most educational partnerships have begun with the intention of meeting the needs or categories of 21

PAGE 33

needs of both partners. Often these needs are. in the form of human or material resources. When partners engage in two-way interactions for the purpose of meeting needs, a situation develops which may be described as a "you have/we need" interchange (Jones & Maloy, 1988, pp. 5-6). Usually these are publicity seeking and are neither designed to exist over the long term nor be open-ended commitments. When this type of partnership exists, the parameters of the relationship are usually defined by formal agreements (Jones & Maloy, 1988). These interactions form the basis for interactive partnerships and can be conceptually understood as a continua of relationships. Continua of Relationships Wise (1981) describes two continua which can explain the relationship between schools and partnerships with other organizations. The first is a communication continuum (see Figure 1) which describes levels of communication among organizations. The second is a cooperation continuum (see Figure 2) which 22

PAGE 34

describes cooperation among organizations. These continua provide conceptual insight into how individuals within organizations relate to each other in partnership and contain the seeds of interactive partnerships (see note 2). Figure 1. Communication continuum. separation communication Customarily, schools maintain separate spheres of activity when communicating with outside organizations. Diverse perspectives and unstated objectives are characteristic of formal collaborations among partners and potential partners. Each organization has a tendency to develop missions and objectives around its own purposes. "The possibilities of shifting costs and responsibilities to the other partner fosters mistrust" (Jones & Maloy, 1988, p.8). Thus, when central issues to structure, aims, goals, management, etc., are raised, they further stimulate new issues regarding organizational 23

PAGE 35

values and means. Communication is a characteristic of interactive partnerships and serves to counter the issues raised among partners as a result of separation. A cooperation continuum is parallel to the communication continuum and ranges from cooperation to collaboration. Cooperation is the starting point for most partnership relationships. It is less than interactive and is characterized by limits being imposed on the relationship by detailing the parameters of each partner's obligations. Collaboration is characterized by strong communication among partners leading to shared understandings of each partner's organizational cultures. Strong collaboration is symbolic of interactive partnerships. The two continua are parallel in that they are related by nature: in order to have collaboration, there must be communication. As one continuum moves from the left to the right, the other continuum moves simultaneously if there is impetus in the partnership parameters. 24

PAGE 36

Figure 2. Cooperation continuum. Cooperation Continuum cooperation interaction/ strong collaboration Thus, in the application of interactive theory, most partnerships begin on the left of both continua with moderate separation and limited cooperation. If the implementation of formal agreements is rigid without provision for changes in personal perspectives or organizational behaviors, then these interchanges usually have only a limited chance of evolving or growing over a period of time, are limited to the original individual participants, are responsive primarily to surface level problems, and do not develop into in-depth interactions which allow each partner to understand the underlying ethos of the other partners' organizations. They do not move toward the communication and interaction ends of the continua. 25

PAGE 37

Growth Through Interaction When entering into cooperative agreements, schools and other organizations can create closer ties. These closer ties, initially based on "you have/we need" arrangements within separate spheres of activity can grow, through interaction, into partnerships which are capable of altering the perspectives and structures of the respective organizations (Jones & Maloy, 1988). Interactive Partnerships as Processes for School Reform Interactive partnerships begin by exchanging benefits such as in "you have/we need" relationships. The partnership develops over time through interactions among partners to generate: 1) new learning processes and understandings about each other, 2) enriched communication about mutual constraints, 3) new roles and responsibilities for the participants, 4) new activities in different settings. This process of development over time has two effects 26

PAGE 38

on education and teaching: 1) the frustration, isolation, and organizational stasis experienced by many educators is counteracted; 2) daily activities of all partners are changed by the infusion of alternative understandings about teaching and education. Thus, partnerships which begin by making agreements for mutual benefits may develop over time into interactive partnerships. These interactive partnerships influence the way of understanding education and teaching which may lead to changes in the daily activities of educators, such as in service delivery, curriculum, teaching methods and materials, and in structures for governance and finance. This is educational reform, in that, the understanding of education and teaching is altered through the process of becoming a partnership and as the result of being a partnership, daily activities and primary structures of the school may be altered to reflect the new understandings (Jones & Maloy, 1988). 27

PAGE 39

Summary of Interactive Partnerships In summary, most partnerships start out as something less than interactive. Early negotiations tend to limit the interaction and constrain the exchange by detailing each partner's obligations so each will stay within the established parameters. Most collaborations between schools and other organizations never grow past the level of saying ... I'll give a school something in return for some positive publicity" (Jones, personal communication, November 13, 1991). This type of partnership is "better than nothing" and may set the stage for further interactive growth. Those few that do continue to grow, change directions, and engage new sets of people become interactive when they gain understanding about the culture of the other organizations. This process changes the levels of understandings about each partner's own organization and about the organization of the other partners. "Implicitly [Jones & Maloy] argue that specialization and segmentation have minimized common understandings about the problems and possibilities 28

PAGE 40

that other organizations face" (Jones, personal communication, November 13, 1991). This leaves the educators participating in the partnership feeling unsupported and encumbered by the other partner's demands. Often, this leads to defensive postures by all partners. Nevertheless, compared to the isolation and specialization perspective, interactive partnerships have the potential to build upon shared understandings of the other partners' organizations. In the process both" ... communicate better and find ways to reconceptualize their apparent problems" (Jones, personal communication, November 13, 1991). This may lead to reform of educational thought and practice by creating alternative understandings about education and change the resultant activities. Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) and Intergovernmental Management (IGM) in Education There are two broad areas of study within the fields of political science and public affairs that conceptually parallel the idea of partnerships in education. These two areas, intergovernmental 29

PAGE 41

relations (IGR) and intergovernmental management (IGM), study the relationships which exist among governmental agencies and management of these relationships (Coleman, 1989). Historically, IGM and IGR have been recurring themes in the fields of education, political science, and public affairs (Anderson, 1960; Coleman, 1989; Elmore, 1983). These approaches, while commonly addressed from the perspective of the federal level, have traditionally examined financial and policy implications of education. Thus, the research in these areas often includes analysis of federal aid to education, the association of state and local education spending to federal government entitlements, and other policy and financial implications (Dye, 1990). But, to this point, "there have been few if any systematic or theoretical studies of intergovernmental relations or intergovernmental management in education" (Bauman, 1992, p.6). Concepts of IGR and IGM Applied to Education IGR and IGM, as recurrent themes in the 30

PAGE 42

literature, have been dependent on the political climate of the times with the amount of writing in these areas often dependent upon impetus from the federal level. The 1980's, with Republican domination of the White House and its accompanying philosophy of devolution which expanded the role of local government in decision making for meeting public needs, brought a resurgence of writing in these fields (Gage & Mandell, 1988). Several concepts, endemic to this literature, emerged as relevant to the field of education and to governmental interagency partnerships with education. Devolution. The Presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush have produced a resurrection of the concept of devolution as a federal policy strategy (Dye, 1990). The concept, with its last focused expression at the federal level under the Presidency of Richard Nixon (Shapek, 1981), served to promote authority and control in policy and decision making to the lowest levels of government. This focus involves the shifting of the responsibility for decision making away from federal agencies to lower levels which are more responsive and better capable of meeting the needs of the people. 31

PAGE 43

In the concrete, "devolution usually refers to a geographic distribution of political power to territorial subdivisions" (Dye, 1990). Power distribution, under this concept, shifts from the federal level to the state or local level (Colemen, 1989) Educationally, this divestment of power can manifest itself in the form of increased power to local governments where needs can best be identified and met. With the bulk of public services for the people being provided at the local level, and with the current trend in public finance where local taxpayers may not be meeting all, most, or any of particular costs of public services (Otterbourg, 1986), devolution as a concept may be reconstructed in the form of local government agency cooperation for the increased power in meeting needs in a specific locality and for a particular reason. Thus, the philosophy and practice of devolution provides a mechanism with legitimate authority for intergovernmental relationships to exist. These relationships may be viewed as networks. Networks among governmental agencies. Mandell 32

PAGE 44

(1988) describes two types of networks, interorganizational networks and intra-organizational networks, which may exist among governmental agencies in IGR and IGM. The inter-organizational network, as expressed in the political science literature, closely parallels the concept of interagency partnerships in education. A comparison of intra-organizational networks with inter-organizational networks provides an explanation of the power that can be obtained from entering into cooperative agreements with agencies with different structures and missions. Inter-organizational networks involve membership from different levels of government, different functions of government, and may contain members with varying degrees of authority. They may be called public sector networks. One characteristic of these networks is that each member represents a specific agency within the public sector and can act independently of all other members (not-for-profit organizations are often included in intergovernmental agreements). Another characteristic of these networks is that hierarchical control is not the dominant relationship as it is in intra-organizational 33

PAGE 45

networks. Studies of these networks focus on the idea that they ... are formed because individual organizations must rely on others to accomplish their individual goals" (Mandell, 1988, p.31). Network sustenance then, is closely related to the reasons and the extent that different organization's participate in the network and the distribution of power within the network. Thus, power in intergovernmental networks is attained through "the power to withdraw from the arrangement" rather than from legitimate power, e.g. legal. Hence, authority and management of the network cannot be based upon centralization of power to one manager, but rather must be based upon bargaining and negotiating with other members of the network. Intra-organizational networks, as opposed to intergovernmental networks, exist within a singular organizational entity (as in a school district). Policy and day to day decision making flow in a hierarchial manner with legitimate authority vested to individuals or offices within the organization. This does not mean that all decisions are always made in a top down fashion, however, the mechanism for this is 34

PAGE 46

available if top management philosophy is not to empower subordinate managers. The differences between the two networks, each with particular implications to education and school reform, point out the differences in management techniques, power within the network, and reasons for agencies entering into the relationship. Thus, as Bauman (1992) points out, "Innovations from IGM that explicitly deal with interorganizational issues seem particularly relevant to reformers of public education" (p.8), and hence, may serve as a perspective for restructuring schools. IGR for effective service delivery. Intergovernmental relations research and practice have focused on and been motivated by the need for effective delivery of public services to the citizenry (Dye, 1990). As previously noted, with local funding sources all too often failing to adequately meet the costs of public programs (of all kinds), education is currently being strained to finance its basic services. Also, through increased regulation of schools by other agencies, it appears that IGR can aid schools by reducing the competition for local revenues 35

PAGE 47

used for the delivery of similar and often duplicitous services. IGR and IGM decreasing compet{tion for funds. The ways schools are financed have recently come under scrutiny by state regulatory agencies, the judicial system, and by the public at large. The public is critical of the increasing amounts of money being spent on education with student achievement declining and labor unions seeming to dictate policies (Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). This has developed into a scenario where less funding is available to schools on a continuous and predictable basis and has resulted in schools being forced to compete with other local governments for existing resources (Odden, 1992). This problem has been compounded by a recent national recession which has produced shortfalls in state and local tax revenues. School districts are increasingly competing with other governmental agencies for a share of the tax dollars which have historically come from protected sources, namely property taxes. This is causing controversy and conflict among schools and other governmental institutions competing for the same tax dollar (Nelson, 1989). Downs (1967) promotes the 36

PAGE 48

idea that every organization operates in an environment where some degree of conflict exists between other organizations in the environment. Until recent times, education had been somewhat protected from compet'ition for resources with other governmental agencies. IGR and IGM, through cooperative arrangements, can provide a framework for resolving interagency conflicts and decreasing this competition. One method proposed by Anton (1989), involves the formation of coalitions for mutual benefit. Summary There is a large volume of descriptive literature addressing current partnership arrangements combining schools with businesses, parents, institutions of higher education, and public institutions. Very few of these do more than describe existing or previously existing situations. Intergovernmental relations and intergovernmental management concepts from the literature on public affairs and political science offer additional insights into cooperation through 37

PAGE 49

inter-organizational networks. These can be positively compared with interagency partnerships for additional perspectives on cooperation through management, power in the organization, and decision making. Implications implicit in both sets of literature are the reduction of duplicity in service delivery and reduced competition for existing resources. The IGM and IGR literature is conceptual and provides a design structure which can be applied to educational interagency partnerships. It does not evaluate the effects of IGR and IGM on educational improvement. There is very little qualitative or quantitative research to evaluate the effects of interagency partnerships on school improvement from the educational literature or the public affairs literature to date. The Theory of Interactive Partnerships attempts to explain partnerships in a manner which will impact school improvement by means of association of teachers with other people outside the school. Both the Theory of Interactive Partnerships and the political science literature on intergovernmental 38

PAGE 50

relations and intergovernmental management directly apply to the Colorado Case Study of the partnership among the City of Colorado Springs, School District 11, and the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency. 39

PAGE 51

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Overview The purpose of this research was to determine if public agency partnerships improve public education. A case study of a partnership in Colorado Springs was conducted and results were compared with existing literature and theory to generate a set of conclusions and recommendations regarding school improvement. The primary methodology for the Colorado portion of this study was qualitative case study. Through these methods, changes made in the school attributing to the partnership, the motives of each partner for entering into the partnership, and the level of interaction among partners were identified. These findings were used to develop a survey to determine the perceived school improvement from these changes made to the school and the motives of the partners. 40

PAGE 52

The level of interaction among partners was examined as an application of the literature on partnerships for school improvement to the Colorado portion of the study. Student attendance and achievement data and school use data were also compiled to examine other effects of the partnership. Thus, the case study utilized both qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyze the Colorado partnership. The findings from this case study formed the basis of comparison with the literature and theory for generating the recommendations and conclusions. The Research Approach: Qualitative Case Study The methodology used in this study, the case study approach, was patterned largely after the work of Robert Yin as set forth in Case Study Research: Design and Method (Yin, 1989) with the consultation of other sources in the field of qualitative methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Guba & Lincoln, 1981, 1985; Hersen & Barlow, 1976; Miles & Huberman, 1983; Patton, 1980; Sherman & Webb, 1988). Case study methodology is qualitative 41

PAGE 53

methodology and can be characterized by several aspects. One aspect is that it is based upon and flows from inductive analysis methods (Patton, 1980). Methods are inductive when the substance of the data analysis allows for patterns, categories, and major themes of analysis to emerge (Patton, 1980) from phenomena when the researcher has little control over the events (Yin, 1989) and without imposing predetermined ideas on the case setting (Sherman & Webb, 1988). Theories which explain what is happening are "grounded" in the inductive data analysis systematically obtained from study of the case and may lead to the discovery of substantive propositions, categories, and theories, or to the development of formal grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This inquiry examined the partnership involved in the restructuring of the school. While structure was applied to the study by using a theoretical framework, the data analysis allowed for patterns, categories, and major themes characteristic of public agency partnerships to emerge. In this case, the researcher had much access to information relating to the partnership, but had little or no control over the 42

PAGE 54

events as they emerged. There were no pre-imposed ideas on the case setting. The purpose of this inquiry was to explain what happened in this case. A second aspect of qualitative methodology is its naturalistic characteristics. Naturalistic characteristics do not attempt to manipulate the case setting (Patton, 1980), rather they attempt to understand events which occur naturally within their context (Sherman & Webb, 1988). Shimahara (1988) promotes the notion that human behavior and experience cannot be understood adequately if they are from their c ontext, "context stripping" (p. 80), because human events are shaped by their context. This case study used naturalistic methods. There was no attempt to manipulate the case setting, and the intention was to understand the partnership as it occurred naturally from within its context, examine how it was shaped by its context, and how it shaped the restructuring of the school. A third aspect of qualitative inquiry is its holistic quality whereby experience is taken and is studied as a whole. All features of the event studied are given attention. The study occurs within the 43

PAGE 55

context of the event and then examines the global nature of case being studied (Yin, 1989) with the aim of understanding the experience as unified (Sherman & Webb, 1988). In this study, data was collected, sorted, and analyzed from the prehistory of the partnership through the nine months after grand opening of the restructured school. This period of time represented a holistic view of the formation of the partnership. As the data was being collected, the procedure allowed for other stages, aspects, or related material to be collected and analyzed if it emerged as part of the investigation. This allowed for the global nature of the partnership to be examined with the intention of understanding the unified experience. A fourth aspect of qualitative research is the act of judging or appraising. The aim is neither to approve nor disapprove the behavior studied in the case, rather to judge the situation and appraise the event so as to gain "an indication of the potentialities that can be sought from the actualities" (Sherman & Webb, 1988, p. 7). Yin (1989) identifies two general analytic strategies for use 44

PAGE 56

with the data from which judging and appraising can yield potentialities from the case: 1) the use of theoretical propositions which led to the case study; 2) the development of a case description which provides a descriptive framework for organizing the case study. In this case study, the theoretical propositions as set by Jones and Maloy (1988) are referenced to as a theoretical perspective. The key indicators and features of interactive partnerships were used as content for analyzing the data in support of the purpose of the study. An additional focus in the application of the ideas of Jones and Maloy (1988) is analysis of the data from the perspective of "you have/we need" motives. Both of these perspectives provided a "means" of understanding the partnership as it influenced and changed the school for school improvement. A case description was developed using an evidentiary-data base to provide answers for the evaluation questions (Appendix A) and address the purposes of the study. 45

PAGE 57

Research Design This study utilized a single-case design. Yin (1989) maintains that single case study design is appropriate under several circumstances. First, the single case study is closely related to the single experiment where n=1. Much of the rationale for justification of the single experiment may be applied to the single case study. A rationale is when the case study represents a critical case in the testing of a well-formulated theory, then it is justified. In this study, the theoretical framework and purpose for the study both related the notion of Interactive Partnerships as delineated by Jones and Maloy (1988). Jones and Maloy have a clear notion about interactive partnerships and detail major elements in the application to partnerships. This study, although not a critical test, was an application of the concept of interactive partnerships to interagency partnerships involving a city government, a public school district, and a non-profit non-governmental agency for school improvement. A second rationale for the single case study is 46

PAGE 58

where the case represents "an extreme or unique case ... so rare that a single case is worth documenting and analyzing" (Yin, 1989, p. 47). This case study represented an interagency partnership of which there was little historical precedent, limited theoretical foundation, and no known research to date. A third rationale, as identified by Yin (1989), is the revelatory case. "This situation exists when an investigator has an opportunity to observe and analyze a phenomenon previously inaccessible to scientific investigation" (p. 48). The partnership involved in the restructuring of a public school into an intergenerational learning center represented a type case of which little had been written with little or no investigation. Units of Analysis Yin (1989) described the holistic design for case study in its application to single-case design. The holistic case study design was described as being useful when there are no logical subunits that can be identified and when the case is founded upon relevant 47

PAGE 59

theory which is itself of a holistic nature. The theory of interactive partnerships, as the theoretical foundation, encompasses a global perspective on the partnership being investigated in that it was developmental throughout the course of the partnership, began when the partnership began and ends when the partnership ends. The questions asked in data collection reacted to the global nature of the partnership in the three developmental stages, all within the parameters of the studies time frame. Thus, the unit of analysis examined the partnership holistically from prehistory through post grand opening with no embedded units being examined. Principles of Data Collection to Be Utilized Yin (1989) identifies three principles of data collection which are relevant to all qualitative data sources used in this study. These principles were included here and delineated so as to properly use the data collected and establish a basis for construct validity and reliability. Principle 1 involved using multiple sources of 48

PAGE 60

data as evidence. Multiple sources of data as evidence were used in this study. Principle 2 required the creation of a case study data base for organizing and documenting the data collected. In this case study, documentation was in the form of the evidentiary data base (see Appendix B) Principle 3 promoted the maintenance of a chain of evidence. Use of this principle increased the reliablitiy of the information in the case study. Use of this principle allow readers of the case study to follow the derivation of evidence from the initial questions. The suggestions of Yin (1989, p. 102) were followed as they related to maintaining a chain of evidence. This was completed and documented during the data reduction phases after data collection was complete. Qualitative Data Collection Beginning on April 19, 1992, and ending on December 4, 1992, data was collected from multiple sources by the researcher. This data was codified and 49

PAGE 61

placed into conceptual categories in the Evidentiary Data Base. Primary Data Sources There were seven primary sources from which evidence or data came: documents, archival records, direct observation, participant observation, physical artifacts, interviews, and questionnaires. Data from documents. Data was collected from a variety of documents both formal and informal. Examples of the documents, analyzed and documented as data, were communiques of all types, meeting agendas and minutes, administrative documents, news reports, articles, and other information. Data from archival records. Data from archival records, where relevant, was collected and analyzed. Such records were available from each of the three organizations in the partnership. Data from direct observation. Direct observation of the interactions between partners was recorded as part of the data collection for the study. Observations of meetings, facilities, classrooms, and 50

PAGE 62

the like were sources of data and collected. Observational evidence about the topic of interactive partnerships provided additional information about the interactive relationship and added new dimensions to the phenomena being studied. Participant observation. The investigator in this case study is involved in the project process primarily as supervisor of the facility during the construction phase. Every attempt was made to observe meetings, promotions, and negotiations other than those related to the construction project and, by choice, the investigator remained outside of the decision making process so as to maintain an objective eye and eliminate the possibility of bias (see notes 3 and 4). Physical artifacts. Physical evidence was collected as appropriate and relevant to the data collection questions. Interviews. Key persons involved in the partnership were interviewed. The questions asked in the interview situation were open-ended in nature and related both to the facts about the partnership as well as opinions about it. In some situations, the 51

PAGE 63

respondents were asked to propose their own insights into a particular occurrence or occurrences. Often, information obtained from this type of interview question was used as a basis for additional inquiry. Attempts were made to establish respondents as "informants" thus providing key information critical to the study. Some of the questions were of the focused type whereby certain evidence was needed to corroborate other evidence. In this situation, every attempt was made to ask questions which were not "leading questions" to corroborate certain evidence. The interviews were tape recorded so as to provide an accurate account of the data accumulated. All were asked permission to tape before the interview began. No interviewees requested that the tape recorder not be used and informal conversational interviews were not tape recorded. Tapes were for data backup and were also used as primary evidence for the Evidentiary Data Base. Many were transcribed, analyzed and entered into the data base thus providing primary data relevant to the 52

PAGE 64

study. A standardized process for interviewing key participants was developed. Patton (1980, p. 197) identifies several approaches to collecting qualitative data through open-ended interviews. Two of these approaches, the informal conversational interview and the general interview guide approach, were used in the data collection process. Differences in these two approaches to interview design involved the degree to which the interview questions are predetermined and standardized before the interview occurred. The first approach, the Informal Conversational Interview, relies on questions generated spontaneously during the course of the interview. Often, the person being interviewed may not have even known that this was taking place. The Informal Conversational Interview was used when unplanned spontaneous conversations yielded data relating to one or more of the conceptual categories. A form was developed for use in recording data from these informal interviews (see Appendix C) This form was used occasionally; many informal interviews were recorded on whatever paper was available at the time. 53

PAGE 65

Second, the General InterviewGuide approach provides more structure to the interview process by "outlining a set of issues that are to be explored with each respondent before the interview begins" (Patton, p. 198). In this situation, question wording and question order may or may not be determined in advance. The Interview Guide was the primary approach used in obtaining Level One data from interviews of key partners in the partnership (See Appendix B) The Interview Guides developed for Question One, Level One, consisted of a list of questions which addressed the issues central to answering Evaluation Questions 1,2, and 3 (see Appendix A). A separate interview guide was developed for each of Evaluations Questions. These guides were prepared so the same basic information was obtained from all interviewees. The questions were not numbered so as to allow for spontaneity and flexibility in relating issues to one another as they arise through the interview process. During the interview, the interviewer followed the general guide, but was free to word questions spontaneously through a conversational style so as to 54

PAGE 66

focus on the predetermined subject. The interviewer purposefully kept the interview focused while allowing for the individual experiences and perspectives to emerge within the context of the issue. Not all persons interviewed had knowledge of the areas identified in the evaluation questions; however, all questions were asked of each interviewee so as to gather all possible data. There was one interviewer in this process, the author of this study. The original list of interviewees consisted of five persons whom the researcher had identified as having information relevant to the study. A systematic method of identifying additional interviewees was built into these first five interviews by asking each interviewee of other persons who may have knowledge of this partnership. Seventeen persons were identified through this process and all seventeen were interviewed between June 9, 1992, and September 10, 1992. All people were directly involved with the partnership. For reporting purposes, data was reported in the aggregate with regard to partner parent organization. These people represented all levels of the respective organizations from top 55

PAGE 67

management and elected officials to custodial positions. Most of the interviews lasted approximately one hour, but several lasted over two hours. Interviews were conducted in private settings, often in the office of the person being interviewed. Appointments were made in all cases with the purpose of the interview stated as well as a statement of confidentiality (see survey cover letter in Appendix D, for summary) Verbal permission to tape was granted before the interviews began and the tape recorder was placed within a reasonable distance to the interviewee so as to obtain a high quality recording. Each tape was analyzed with written notes transcribed for later analysis. In several interviews, multiple tapes were used because of the length of the interview. Of those people interviewed, the breakdown of organizational alliances are reported in Figure 3. Qualitative Data Processing and Analysis The first step in data processing and analysis was anticipatory and served to focus the study. 56

PAGE 68

Patton (1980) maintained that focus for the study comes from delineation of evaluation questions which must be produced at the beginning of the study and before data collection begins. This process occurred through the development of five questions which delineated the major focus of the study. Figure 3. Interviewees by Parent Organization Parent Organization School District 11 West Junior High School The City of Colorado Springs Number of Interviewees 5 3 7 Pikes Peak Community Action Agency 2 Evaluation Questions Evaluation questions were developed during the initial design of the study and guided the collection and recording of data (see Appendix A) Active pre-57

PAGE 69

planning occurred describing the type, kind, and amount of data that was needed to accurately complete the study. This process also allowed for the next step in data analysis, interim data reduction (Miles & Huberman, 1983) to be completed as data collection proceeded. Five research questions were developed and divided into two levels of investigation: Level One and Level Two. These two levels of investigation served specific purposes. Level One investigation involved determining "what happened" as a result of the partnership. Level Two investigation involved applying the findings in Level One to school improvement. Interim Data Reduction Interim data reduction, the second step in data analysis, occurred through summaries of conceptual categories in the evidentiary data base. This process was continuous during data collection and allowed for a chain of evidence to be created. 58

PAGE 70

Post Data Collection Reduction The third step in the analysis process was one of post data collection reduction. All data in the evidentiary data base was reviewed in its entirety several times before making a determination regarding the display of data through appropriate descriptive or explanatory measures. Level One data was reported using descriptive measures regarding "how the school was changed as a result of the partnership" (Evaluation Question OneAppendix A), and "the motives of the partners for entering into the partnership" (Evaluation Question Two -Appendix A) The Levels of Interaction among partners were also recorded in a qualitative manner using descriptors of each area of interaction. These descriptors were then quantified by level of intensity of interaction in each area. This method was devised in order to provide a standardized method of analysis for abstract concepts. 59

PAGE 71

Level One Results Presentation: Case Description The case study approach to research requires a written summary of each case. The summary is constructed from the raw case data and is a holistic and comprehensive description of the case so that it can stand alone. This case description was the primary method for reporting Level One results. The Case Description is contained in Chapter 4. Quantitative Data Collection Questionnaire When all of Level One data had been collected, sorted by conceptual category, and analyzed to answer questions one and three, a questionnaire was developed to survey the population of people who had knowledge of the partnership and changes to the school. The questionnaire was developed using a compilation of guidelines as set forth in Fowler (1988), Alreck & Settle, (1985), and Sonquist and Dunkelberg (1977). 60

PAGE 72

The survey was constructed and proceeded as follows: Statement construction. Survey statements were formulated from results of analysis of the data from Evaluation Questions One and Three. Twelve multiple response statements were presented to the participants. Participants were asked to select a response which best represented their perception of school improvement or possible adverse effect on the school as a result of the change initiated by the partnership (see Appendix D) A Likert scale was used for participants to respond. Two open-ended questions were included at the end of the 12 Likert statements. These questions were included to identify the most significant possible improvement and the most significant possible adverse effect the partnership had upon the school and to identify any additional information which may have been overlooked, not included, or inaccurately framed during the Level One investigation. Pretesting. The questionnaire was pretested before distribution to the target population to identify ways the document could be changed to make it easier for respondents to respond and to check 61

PAGE 73

questions for ambiguity, inappropriate wording, or other problems with the questionnaire design. As a pretest, the questionnaire was administered to a group of fourteen graduate students enrolled in the Northern Colorado Leadership Academy at the University of Colorado at Denver. The students were given a two hour class on the partnership to familiarize them with the concepts involved. There were no changes made to the questionnaire after the pretest. The survey was reviewed by the University of Colorado Human Subjects Research Committee before distribution to the target population and was granted exempted research status. Population. The population surveyed was composed of 65 persons and was organized into broad areas for analysis by population cohort groups (see Figure 3) .. Fifty-three people responded to the questionnaire for a return rate of 82%. Of those who did not respond, several had moved from the area and were unavailable for follow up solicitation, and some elected not to participate in the study for personal or unknown reasons. Every attempt was made to encourage participation by the researcher making personal contacts of those persons who had not 62

PAGE 74

returned the questionnaire. Each questionnaire was coded with information before distribution as it related to the cohort groups. The questionnaires were coded with demographic information. Fortunately, there was a dual code established, one for name and another for "on site or off site" status. Seven people removed one of the codes prior to submission which required the establishment of an "unknown" category in the relationship cohort. The reasons for these code removals were unknown and this aspect of response demographics made accurate analysis of non-respondents impossible. The identities of all participants remained anonymous and all results were reported in either general aggregate, site aggregate, or relation/position aggregate. Results to the openended survey questions, because of the nature of the subject, the candor in answering the questions, and the concerns expressed from some staff of reprisals if other than aggregate data identification were published, were reported only in the general aggregate. Of all persons surveyed, the parents' group was 63

PAGE 75

the only group with limited knowledge of the partnership. The parent group selected was that group of parents who serve on the School Accountability Committee. This group was chosen because of their involvement with the school in hopes that they would have a better understanding of the partnership and the resultant changes. Scale. Responses were produced in a Likert scale format with rating possibilities of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Spatial displays in Appendix E exhibit data organized by cohort group, question, and area of change. The scale used in the survey was: 1 = will strongly improve the school 2 = will improve the school 3 = no effect on the school 4 = will have an adverse effect the school 5 = will have a strong adverse effect on the school Distribution. The surveys were mailed to one of two places on November 23, 1992, using the following guidelines. If a person worked at the site, the questionnaire was mailed to the participant's home address. If a person did not work at the site or was 64

PAGE 76

a partner, the survey was mailed to the office Figure 3. Population Surveyed by Questionnaire Suryey Analysis: Area One Total population surveyed n = 63 Persons returning Questionnaire n = 53 Suryey Analysis: Area Two At Site: n = 37 Not at Site: n = 16 Total n = 53 Survey Analysis: Population Area Three Administrators: n = 9 Educational Support Services: n = 9 Parent' : n = 4 Partner: n = 7 Teacher: n = 21 Unknown: n = 3 Total: n = 53 address. Questionnaires to parents were mailed to the home address. A self-addressed stamped envelope was enclosed for the convenience of the respondents. Instructions in the questionnaire requested that they be returned by December 4, 1992. Many of the questionnaires were returned to the researcher 65

PAGE 77

directly at the site. Some persons asked for replacement questionnaires due to loss. Quantitative Data Processing and Analysis Questionnaire Analysis Analysis of the Questionnaire was completed by cohort group, by broad question area (governance, service delivery, finance, and facility), and by response frequency (1-5). Analysis by cohort group was divided into three population areas: 1) total population; 2) total population divided into two groups: those people who were presently working at the site and those people who were not at the site; 3) total population divided 1nto five groups by position/relationship to the partnership or school. The site was determined to be West Center for Intergenerational Learning, 1920 West Pikes Peak Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Additionally, the questionnaire was analyzed by question, frequency of response, and broad area of school improvement. Analysis of coded interview data was conducted using 66

PAGE 78

methods described by Miles and Huberman (1983) for Within-Site Analysis and Alreck & Settle (1985), Part Four: Analysis and Reporting. The mean and standard deviation of each area were the primary method of analysis. Information was organized into spatial displays for systematic organization and presentation in a compressed and ordered form in order to lead the reader to the conclusions reached. Each data set was hand crafted to meet the unique requirements of the research questions. 67

PAGE 79

CHAPTER IV THE COLORADO CASE STUDY: FINDINGS Introduction The major problem studied was how schools may improve as a result of interagency partnerships. Using data obtained from multiple sources, a case description of the partnership among the City of Colorado Springs, The Pikes Peak Community Action Agency, and Colorado Springs School District 11 was developed. This case description presents a "chain of evidence" explaining the historical background, the motives of each partner for entering into the partnership, the interactiveness of the partners during the design phase, and the restructuring of the school as a result of the partnership. For reasons of anonymity, all names used in the case study are fictitious. However, in the interest of organizational perspective, the fictitious names 68

PAGE 80

presented in this narrative are associated with a partner organization. Thus, those names associated with the persons affiliated with the City of Colorado Springs are: Anna, Alex, John, Harold, Charles, Ronald, Bernard, Warren, Audrey, Rebecca, Gloria, Merrill, Lori, Oliver, and Cheryl. Those names affiliated with the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency are: Sharon, Robert, Francis, Glenn, Andrew, Roxanne, Steven, and Kenneth. Those names affiliated with School District 11 are Mark, Marsha, Kent, Dexter, Kathryn, Howard, Amelia, Joseph, Eloise, William, Timothy, Joan, Troy, Hillary, and Winston. The case description is the primary presentation of Level One evidence as described in Chapter II. A questionnaire was administered to a population of people who had in-depth knowledge of the partnership, the school, or were involved in the decision making processes to survey their perceptions of school improvement resulting from the partnership. This questionnaire provided a quantitative measure of school improvement likely to result from the partnership as part of the case study. Findings from the survey are supported by data summaries which are 69

PAGE 81

displayed in spatial and/or in narrative form. Those summaries are contained in the Appendix E. Case Description The City of Colorado Springs, in a 1987 study of neighborhood needs, identified the west side as desirable for the placement of a community center to house both human services and recreational programs. This need was supported by demographic data which described the population as having a lower median income level with an above average concentration of senior citizens. Thus, a centralized service facility was targeted for the area. "Conceptualization of this community center promoted the acquisition of a facility that would be similar to other sites already operating throughout the city and would share a similar mission: to serve the social, health, recreational, and educational needs of the neighborhood," remarked Harry. From this study, then, political pressure was being applied to city officials by several west side organizations to make the center a reality. "The 70

PAGE 82

timing of this project was particularly appropriate," said John, "the political environment during the mid1980's was conducive to building the community center. It was known that the west side center was the last of the proposed centers to be constructed and west side residents were growing restless to get the project under way. Unfortunately, community centers are very expensive facilities to create, whether by conversion of an existing building or by new construction." To compound matters, Ronald states that "the city had just come under tax limitations by voter sanction making the task of raising this large sum of money very difficult." Thus, the prospects for the city to create the center were dubious. Over the past ten years, the needs of the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency (PPCAA) had grown faster than the existing facility could accommodate. The PPCAA is the Pikes Peak region's leading non-profit social services agency and the Billie Spielman Center is one unit of three distributed throughout the City of Colorado Springs. The PPCAA is funded with approximately 25% private donations and 75% public 71

PAGE 83

funds. "This center, similar to the other PPCAA centers, provides low income financial assistance as well as other essential services for low income families. The needs of the west side supported the growth of the Billie Spielman Center as west side demographics were below that of the city at large," explained Glenn. More than 50% of the households in the service area of the proposed community center had household incomes that are less than 80% of the city wide average. The PPCAA'S Billie Spielman Center was housed in a temporary World war Two barracks located in a local west side park. The PPCAA was actively seeking new accommodations for the Billie Spielman Center. As Sharon describes, there was a definite need for upgrading the facilities, but funds were limited to do so: The Billie Spielman Center was located in an 800 square foot building at 306 South 26th Street. The building was not the type of facility needed for service to clients. There was a family atmosphere in the building, but no privacy: the counseling rooms were five feet by five feet. There were no doors on those little rooms. You 72

PAGE 84

could get one client sitting beside the desk and the others would have to pull up a chair and be facing the other two offices. They could hear the conversations in the other rooms. I could hear all of the conversations going on in the building and many times they were confidential in nature. It was not a good situation at all. People needed a place to be counseled which would preserve their dignity. It just was not an appropriate facility and we had neither the money nor the expertise to create our own. And as Bernard continued: Partnership would provide the additional resources to implement plans for a community center on the west side. The facility could be built. There was not enough money for the City nor the PPCAA to proceed alone. During the spring of 1987, the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency and the City of Colorado Springs joined forces and created a partnership to explore alternative ways to fund a facility which would house both the community center for the city and the Billie Spielman Center for the PPCAA. Under this arrangement, the PPCAA acted as the fundraising agent soliciting funds to either construct a new facility or convert an existing building into a suitable facility. Robert best describes how this process developed: 73

PAGE 85

I think the timing was right for the PPCAA and the city to get together. The first proposal I wrote for a new community center on the west side was in 1976. The Organization of West Side Neighbors was behind this proposal, but it wasn't on the city's agenda. It kept corning up as a high priority through the late seventies and early eighties, but funding was not there on the city's side. They had other projects they needed to finance before they could do this last one, i.e., investment in west side business; rejuvenating Old Colorado City; and west side street projects. There was a lot of money spent on community development over here. I believe the city had felt that the west side had gotten more than its share. Now, political pressures were building up to build the center and the economic climate was poor. A steering committee was formed to guide the progress; the PPCAA enlisted the services of a private fund-raising business to coordinate the effort; and sponsors were solicited from both public and private sources. This process raised approximately $350,000. The city had opportunities to use Community Development Block Grant monies and raised an additional $300,000 for the project. This created a total project fund of approximately $650,000, and the partners went looking for a suitable site. Gloria stated: The city was searching to find an adequate site to house the community center. We and the PPCAA surveyed three or four sites, 74

PAGE 86

but none were suitable. We tried to acquire one of the west side parks ... but the neighborhood protested. We tried to acquire an existing building, but the expense was out-of-line for what we would have to do to it to make it meet our needs. Thus, after extensive searching, it was found that no vacant land suitable for the center was available and the one building which was marginally suitable for conversion was priced inappropriately for the renovations needed to create the facility. The only vacant land was a city park which, when proposed for community center use, met with fierce resistance from neighborhood residents. Audrey summarizes. the dilemma existing for partnership between the city and the PPCAA: The west side neighborhood raised $300,000, the city had raised $350,000 for the project and every influential person on the west side was behind it. Politically, there is no way I would have said let's not do this. On the other hand, there was not enough money to build or acquire an adequate facility. The sound decision was not to do it in this economy. It was the spring of 1990; the fund-raising had been complete for almost two years; there still was no available and appropriate site; and as Andrew describes, to compound the difficult situation 75

PAGE 87

already existing, "donors were considering withdrawal of funds which had been so difficult to raise." For the past several years, School District 11 had not been funded adequately for the numerous programs and facilities necessary to support the previous educational programs of the late 1970's and early 1980's. The school district, located in the metropolitan area of Colorado Springs, had approximately 30,000 students in 39 elementary schools, 9 junior high schools, 5 senior high schools, and 1 alternative high school. The student population in the central part of the city had been declining over the past decade which culminated with the closure of three elementary schools and one junior high school since 1979. West Junior High School was one of these schools with declining enrollment. Down from approximately 575 students in the mid-1970's, the approximately 450 students enrolled in the late 1980's, established the school as a possibility for closure. Student achievement and attendance were in decline; the dropout rate was well above the District's average with 76

PAGE 88

community demographics suspected of contributing to these trends, and the facility was deteriorating from lack of physical resources to rejuvenate it. Ethnically, the mixture at the school was approximately 75% European American, 20% Hispanic, 4% African American, and 1% from other ethnic backgrounds. It was the goal of the principal to increase community participation in the school to help meet the demands placed upon the school by demographical factors. "Many of the students were considered to be at risk' because of low family income, neglect and abuse in the home, lack of adult role models in their lives, or historical family precedence of not graduating from school," explained Amelia who continued: Many students were from single parent families; estimates ran as high as 60 percent and 50 percent of the student body was eligible for free or subsidized school lunch programs. There was a strong need for adults to listen to kids at West. It is a characteristic that many kids raise themselves here. There is no guidance in the home and nobody to listen or impart values to them. The teachers were raising many of the kids and really cared about them as individuals. We needed more adults in this place. West Junior High School was also a physically 77

PAGE 89

declining facility. Constructed in 1924, there had been at least three structural additions to the school with the last one completed in the 1970's. As Mark explained: The school was in general disrepair; the electrical wiring and plumbing did not meet current building code specifications; the hallways and classrooms were in need of paint and a general face lift, and with the new requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the district was stretched to properly maintain the facility let alone meet these new ADA requirements. At best, West would be forced to compete with the other 53 schools for its share of a very limited maintenance budget. At worst, West would continue in its poor physical state until additional monies were acquired by the district for the needed renovation, or the school was to close. As Steven expounds, "When the deteriorating condition of the facility was combined with poor student achievement, poor student grades, low student attendance, and high dropout rates, many people on the west side were fearful of losing West Junior High through closure." Thus, when the newly enacted state funding formula for schools, established in 1988, failed to fund the district adequately, a new list of schools targeted for closure was developed. West Junior High School was on that list. 78

PAGE 90

It was a well known fact, based upon the closure of four city schools in 1979, among officials of the school district, the City of Colorado Springs, and the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency, that when a school closes, the community loses its focal point. "Residents move to new localities to be near the schools their children attend and the neighborhood gradually deteriorates," remarked Bernard who continued, "the city is then reluctant to fund improvements due to a declining tax base and the cycle has begun." City officials understood this by practical experience as residents came to the city seeking help in establishing a physical focal point for their respective communities in the neighborhoods where schools had closed earlier. "I suspect that there was enough old knowledge gained from the closure of South Junior High School a few years ago to serve as a motive for keeping west open. There would be devastation in this part of town if it were to close," revealed William. This sentiment was substantiated by Sharon who said, "Closing West would devastate the community," and by Anna who elaborated, "We in the city know that every time a school closes, 79

PAGE 91

the neighborhood dies. This happened at South Jr. High and Lowell Elementary because the focal point was gone." There was a demonstrated history of cooperation between the city and the school district. City officials responsible for community development had historically met regularly with school district officials. "Often these meetings resulted in the formation of partnerships to integrate and avoid duplicity of services, share or contain costs of service delivery, and demonstrate fiscal responsibility to taxpayers," explained Oliver. West Junior High School had entered into partnership several years earlier with the City of Colorado Springs in the construction of the "backyard park" which completely renovated the school grounds with new landscaping. Under the terms of the agreement, the school would have primary use of the facility during school hours, and at other times, the facility would serve as a city park. This history of cooperation between the school district and the city facilitated the partnership process, as Charles describes from the city's point of view: 80

PAGE 92

We have a long-standing relationship with District 11 so the proposed partnership was a natural for me. The trust issues were already resolved. The school's goal is to produce good citizens and the city's goal is to keep those citizens good citizens. The partnership made sense in that regard. We didn't really care who got the credit. Together we have the responsibility for keeping the community healthy. Thus, the stage had been set for the formation of the tripartite partnership between the city, the school district and West Junior High School, and the PPCAA. The individual stake holders in the partnership had similar missions of providing for the community's human services, education, neighborhood involvement, and recreational needs. With impetus from logistical hurdles that could be bypassed by sharing of resources, a history of trust between agencies, the willingness to trust each other in the sharing of "turf," and the need to provide services and an adequate facility, the partnership was formed. "A facility of this stature was not attainable by any of the agencies acting independently in this economic environment," remarked Ronald. As Rebecca continued: The use of West Junior High provided a facility thus saving the additional money needed to acquire land and construct a new facility. The existing cafeteria, 81

PAGE 93

gymnasium, computer facilities, shops, and other expensive physical requirements would not have to be built, would not then be duplicated in the community, and would save the taxpayers money. The school district would have a rejuvenated building which would enhance the school's integrity and position it to better meet student needs. This was reinforced by Charles, who expounded the city's point of view from a slightly different perspective: There were many benefits for the city from this partnership. The land was free which was a big consideration for me. The school district does not have to comply with certain city zoning laws so it made conversion of the building site a lot easier. There were physical resources already existing at the school which would cut down on duplicity within the community. Among these were food service facilities, a gym, shop, and computer room. They were already in place so we would not have to spend new money for them. These facilities could be upgraded or remodeled at a fraction of the cost of new construction. The school, by remaining open, would thereby help to eliminate another community deteriorating as a result of school closure. Roxanne expressed: Partnership eliminated the need for the city and the PPCAA to continue fundraising for the additional money to proceed with the project. It was doubtful that the economic climate of the times would support additional fundraising for this effort. The school district was under financial limitations and so was the city. 82

PAGE 94

Alex illuminated the concept of leveraging: The whole concept of partnership is to take those of us who have little pockets and leverage it into something bigger. We all have smaller pockets now due to tax limitation upon the city and other restraints placed upon the school district. This partnership maximizes taxpayer dollars. Each organization's strengths were played together which added flexibility for the organizations and saved money. It maximized everybody's non-profit dollars while obtaining the synergistic benefits. Hence, as predicted by the Jones and Maloy (1988) theory of partnerships, the motives and benefits of the partners were clear and based on a "you have/we need" relationship. From the perspective of the school, West Junior High was 70 years old. Many of the existing facilities were out dated, and other facilities, such as the computer room, needed upgrading to be adequate for service provision. The school had an obvious lack of community participation. The city had the ability to bring the community to the school by the creation of a community center; the Billie Spielman Center had the ability to provide the much needed human services that would affect the community which would, in turn, affect the students at West. The 83

PAGE 95

existing partnership between the city and the PPCAA had approximately $650,000 for the physical construction of a facility and the willingness and trust to share service provision with the school district. This partnership then, would provide needed renovations for the facility, would ameliorate the conditions exposing west Junior High to closure, and would unite the community and the school. From the broader view point, School District 11 had been under severe budget constraints and the future did not look optimistic. Many of its 53 school buildings were in need of some renovation with some needing major renovation. West was one of the buildings with a need for major renovation. The demographics of the city were changing which was forcing enrollment in the near urban schools to decline. This created a serious threat of closure for several schools in a consolidation effort and an uncertain future for these schools. The district was reluctant to invest in these schools, and west in particular, because of this uncertain future. The existing partnership between the city and the PPCAA had money it was willing to share for structural 84

PAGE 96

renovations and had services and programs that could be into the facility. The creation of a community center at West would focus the school as the center of the community, utilize unused space, and lessen the probability that the school would close. The school district would benefit from the partnership. The City of Colorado Springs needed land or an existing building on an appropriate site for its community center. Previous attempts over the past years had failed to locate an adequate site and the community of west side residents was applying political pressure for the community center. The city had existing resources, but these resources were inadequate to create a community center appropriate for the need. The city and the PPCAA had a long term partnership evidenced by the fact that the Billie Spielman Center was currently located on city property (a city park). The PPCAA had the ability to raise funds because of its non-profit non-public status and could raise a portion of the needed money to adequately fund the acquisition of a community center. Additionally, the PPCAA offered services 85

PAGE 97

which were compatible with the philosophy of the city: "to serve as a broker" in the service provision for meeting neighborhood needs. The PPCAA offered its primary resources to render human services for low income individuals and families. School District Eleven had an appropriate site with an existing building which contained many of the "expensive" physical facilities needed for the community center such as a gymnasium, kitchen, and computer room. The Billie Spielman Center needed an appropriate facility. The existing 800 square foot army barracks had inadequate space for the agency to complete its mission: a food pantry, private counseling rooms, medical screening facilities, storage, office space, etc. Client counseling was inappropriately housed in open small cubicles considering the nature of the subjects discussed. The Billie Spielman Center had sought adequate facilities over the past several years, but could not find an appropriate site. The city offered the service of finding, constructing, and maintaining an appropriate facility which is one of its specialties and within its mission. The city had already earmarked certain funds for this purpose. 86

PAGE 98

West Junior High School had an appropriate site for the needed community center. Although there were several motives for the partnership to coalesce, there is one important thread which runs through the motives of each institution in the partnership. Without this thread, the partnership would probably not exist: None of the stakeholders could afford to procure the facility independently. This was the original impetus and its importance overrides all other motives. The partnership was agreed to verbally with the understanding that the city and the school district would work cooperatively to develop a joint construction and management agreement for the community center. Hence, the community center was becoming a reality because three agencies entered into partnership to create a symbiotically plausible relationship and the primary motive of each agency for entering into this partnership stemmed from the generally poor economic and political environment of of the times. The partnership entered into discussions with a local architectural firm, the Van Sant group in the 87

PAGE 99

spring of 1989, and a plan was drawn to provide both a structural addition and a detailed renovation of the existing West Junior High School. "Bids were solicited from various construction firms during the first round of bidding with all bids submitted over the projected budget," explained Victor who continued, "we worked with the architectural firm, rethought and redrew the plans, and downsized the scope of the project." Bids were reso1icited and a contract was offered to Darnell Western Inc., commercial building contractors to complete construction of the facility. In August of 1991, construction began. Under the terms of the verbal partnership agreement explained Eloise, "The PPCAA would provide approximately $350,000 from its fundraising efforts, the city would provide approximately $300,000 for new construction and renovation, and the school district would provide the site, the existing facility, $50,000 for purchase and installation of an elevator, and $30,000 for cost overrun and change order funding" (see Note 3). Additionally, as Dexter recounted, "West Junior High School and School District Eleven would provide 88

PAGE 100

administrative services for the center and work closely with the contractor to ensure compliance and correct work." Project coordination and management was the responsibility of the city and a project manager was installed who controlled financial, logistical, and contractor coordination for the project. Decisions were to be made on changes to the plan, unforeseen expenditures, and other "construction issues" by a newly formed Construction Committee. "This committee monitored the progress of construction and made decisions during their regular Wednesday afternoon meeting," remarked Marsha. Members of this committee consisted of representatives of all stakeholders, the project manager, the contractor, the project architect, and other ad hoc members as needed. Members of this committee rated the interaction among partners as very high during the eight month building construction. In the words of Kathryn, "We communicated with each other nearly every day, sometimes on the telephone, sometimes in the meetings on Wednesday, and always when big decisions had to be made fast." This project was the first common 89

PAGE 101

endeavor the partnership would undertake. It was one of massive proportion with many decisions having to be made on an ongoing basis. The development of communications contributing to the interactiveness of the partnership was described by Ronald: Through the building project, the different agencies had a chance to work together and build trust relationships. The construction project did a lot to cement the partnership together and provide a foundation to build upon. It was through those thousands of hours of meetings that cooperation and trust was established. Lots of ideas were shared by teachers. People got to interact to see how each other operates. As the construction project proceeded, another joint committee was formed and also met weekly. This committee, the Joint Users Group, consisted of members from each of the partnership stakeholders. "This group met on Tuesday afternoons and made decisions about how the new facility would be used, furnishings, management, and the like," explained Roberta. This group also expressed feelings of strong interactiveness. Cheryl, who serves on the committee said that "We often had to coordinate our part of the process with the construction committee, sometimes we would consult with them before making a 90

PAGE 102

decision and sometimes they would seek our recommendations before making a decision." Timothy additionally explained that "All members of the joint users group had different styles, two of us are administrators, one is a dreamer, and the fourth is a visionary. It helped with the communication and decision making to have a good mix of people with different styles. We were very interactive." "It also helped to have members from our committee as members of the construction committee," remarked Lori who continued, "this made coordination of the project a lot easier." These two committees composed the primary facilitation component of the partnership. Both groups employed a full compliment of partner stakeholders, met on a regular basis, and made decisions using consensus about issues of common concern. This was facilitated by the high level of interaction as Amelia said: The partners adapted to the needs at the time: situations which were occurring; budget limitations; and so on. The reason the process went so smoothly is that we have all developed an understanding of what the needs of the other people and organizations were. Before we might say 'I don't know why the city can't ... or I don't understand why the school won't ... You 91

PAGE 103

don't hear people saying that anymore. I understand their problems much better and they understand mine. As Harry continued: Through negotiations, each of the partners got most of what they needed and some of what they wanted. Everybody was sensitive to that issue. Once the construction phase was complete, both committees ceased to exist, transferring their power to a newly developed governance structure agreed to through the Joint Use and Construction Agreement. This agreement was developed by a committee (not named) composed of the Director of Business Services and the Principal of West Junior High School representing School District Eleven, and the Manager of Neighborhood Resources Department representing the City of Colorado Springs. The process of developing this agreement mandated the use of new people which confounded and impeded the development of the agreement as William explains: Each negotiating team had a cadre of lawyers and accountants develop this agreement. It was a common belief of the partners that negotiations were more difficult on this particular agreement than on other agreements because people who were outside the decision making process were now negotiating without a complete history of the partnership. 92

PAGE 104

As Eloise continued: At one point in the negotiations, the partnership team dismissed these 'new people, reached agreement on the substance of the agreement and 'told' their people what was to be included. This was done over the protest of the legal profession because the nature and substance of the decision had no historical precedent. Dexter drives the point home by his elaboration: When negotiations between partners occurs, it is very helpful to have the right people in the room so as to not have to start over and do it again. This can be time intensive and logistically difficult. Speaking generally of the importance of the trust and communication systems which developed over time with original participants and the impact of newcomers to the partnership, Timothy explains: Communication was easier when partners serving on the various teams could relate to each other and work out problems on an ongoing basis. When outsiders were introduced, communication problems started to develop. The partners had worked through many problems together and had thus reached many common understandings which were not written down. When outsiders such as the lawyers and accountants entered the scene, they often served as "barrier people" thus inhibiting the vision and slowing the progress to reaching mutual agreements. This is also the problem when new people enter the picture who are in key power positions. They must be "wrapped into the vision" or success of the project may be in jeopardy. This was the case with [name 93

PAGE 105

withheld] of [organization withheld] This may be because there appears to have been a "new language" developed among partners which may be a barrier to understanding for new people or they may not accept the concept of partnership and all it entails. The effects and influence of new participants into the partnership process is further stressed by Winston: Interactiveness of the partnership may be affected when new participants are placed in key positions of power. If it is not known what their position is on cooperation and sharing of resources, the partnership may be compromised. If they do not continue to endorse the partnership and support it in both financial and in other ways, I believe that stagnation will occur. We have seen this happen in one instance already. Unfortunately, we at the site level do not have control over higher up positions in the [partner organizations]. It would be beneficial if the partnership could develop measures to protect itself from political and economic circumstances resulting from [partner organization] events. Continuing with the idea of protection, Merrill explained: At some point, politics has to be taken out of the project. This can happen if the organization moves toward a non-profit status or other status emphasizing independence. This will permit the organization to not be as reactive to parent organizational demands and not subject to the political climate of the times. In the long run, an organization like West can't be dependent upon the political climate of the times. 94

PAGE 106

Signed on February 13, 1992, by the Mayor of Colorado Springs and the President of the School Board for School District 11 just one month before Grand Opening of the Center, the Joint Use and Construction Agreement was finally complete. This agreement established a governance structure for the Center and states that ... the Principal of the school will act as manager of the Center." Further, "In exercising her authority, the manager will consult and meet with representatives of the city on a regular basis, and will take no action which would adversely affect, in any way, the city's rights under this agreement. The agreement, while temporary in nature, prescribes that a permanent agreement be developed and ratified" (February 13, 1992, p.4). The language of the agreement excludes the PPCAA in any form. Simultaneous to the processes implemented by the three aforementioned committees, the school had formed several committees to help orchestrate the transition from West Junior High School as an independent school, to West Junior High School as a division of the larger community center. Although 95

PAGE 107

there were several other committees in service at the same time, the principle committees concerned with the partnership were 1) Governance Committee, composed of the principal and one counselor organized for the purpose of establishing a structure for staff input into decision making; 2) Intergenerational Learning Committee: programs and facilities, composed of staff and partners with the mission to propose, plan for, and evaluate programs at the West Center (including the school) and evaluate the facility and equipment needs along with a long range plan for improvement; 3) Intergenerational Vision Committee, composed of partners and staff to design the future course of the West Center and the focus for West as a school; and 4) Schedule Committee, composed of school staff to set the process in motion to develop future schedules for the Center including student schedules and integration of all schedules of agencies using the Center. The committees would meet periodically to discuss progress and provide input into the process as requested by the other committees. "These committees were designed to bring the west staff into the decision making process," 96

PAGE 108

explained Robert. "It appears that including the staff into the partnership as participants helped establish ownership into the project," continued Troy. The "Mission Statement" for the Center was created by the Vision Committee and reads: "The West Center for Intergenerational Learning is a community of life-long learners dedicated to: 1. building quality, intergenerational relationships 2. providing opportunities for all to reach their full potential 3. making responsible choices; serving each other 4. honoring our differences 5. thinking globally; working locally." Of additional interest, was the Grand Opening Committee which was given the task of planning and organizing the ceremony. This committee began meeting in early February and was instrumental in organizing the speeches, planning the overall presentation and finalizing all arrangements. 97

PAGE 109

Several committee members expressed their dismay at the political implications of orchestrating such a ceremony. Virginia expressed dismay at the politics involved in just planning one event, "Our planning involved deciding not only who should speak at the ceremony, but who should speak first and possible political implications from the selections the committee made. We didn't want anybody to get upset. The people from the city were especially aware of this." Such are the political realities of a partnership of this stature with the long and short term implications of decisions made by the committee. Construction was completed approximately one month behind schedule. Joseph describes the reasons: This was due primarily to construction problems which developed during the course of the project. Two of the major problems which delayed progress on building, the structural addition, and remodeling the existing building were extremely adverse weather during crucial developmental times of construction and the closure of school and delay of construction due to asbestos exposure to the school. This exposure happened while members of the electrical sub-contractor group were working in one of the many tunnels beneath the school. Of the numerous decisions made by the 98

PAGE 110

Construction Committee, Joint Users Group, and the various school committees working in partnership, many governance, service delivery, facility, and financial changes were made to the school which resulted in a restructured school. Mark explained the changes to the existing facility which impact the school: Changes to the facility included modifying and upgrading portions of the existing structure including structural changes to the auditorium, music rooms, computer room, weight room, art room, and several classrooms. A dance/exercise_room was added during the reallocation of existing space by conversion of the existing choir room. Facilities to provide for and serve senior citizen meals were added to the band room which was to become a shared space with the other agencies. "These areas were called joint use spaces," explained Harry, who continued, "the entire downstairs hallways were painted and an elevator was installed which provided access for disabled persons to the second story. A 7,000 square foot structural addition was added to the site and retrofitted to the northwest side of the school." Alex described this improvement from the city's point of view: Included in this new structure was an office complex to house the Billie Spielman 99

PAGE 111

Center, office space for the City's Facilities Manager, and the School District Eleven Community Education Coordinator. A conversation room was provided which offered a place for persons using the community center to congregate as needed. A small-scale medical complex was included which housed the office of the school nurse and a well equipped examination room. Also included in this complex was office space for the school social worker with an "outreach room" for activities. Space for a "teen center" and "pre-school" was included which would be manned by city personnel in the future. Changes in the governance structure of the school and subsequent community center fell into four broad areas: First, west Junior High School had been changed to West Center for Intergenerational Learning, a community center. "The new name for the facility was decided by the Joint Users Group," explained Hillary, "but before it was made final, it had to be approved by the school district, the city, and the PPCAA." She continues: We wanted something that would describe what the center really was, yet be practical. For instance, the secretaries were concerned about what to say when answering the phone. We finally decided that West Center would be an appropriate greeting. So we named it West Center for Intergenerational Learning and everybody agreed. we still do not have a logo for the stationery, we have not been able to agree 100

PAGE 112

on this, not the building team, but someone from higher up in one of the organizations. Thus, the school which was once an independent entity became a division of the community center. Second, a management team was formed by transforming the Joint Users Group into the Joint Management Team. The team is composed of the principal, the School/Community Coordinator, the City Programs and Facilities Director, and the Director of the Billie Spielman Center. "The Joint Management Team makes decisions and policies regarding Center operations and programs. Decisions are made by consensus, however, the principal has 'veto power' over any decision made by the committee," explained Lorie, a member of the team. "Any veto or decision which is not made by the Joint Management Team can be appealed to a higher currently hypothetical management team composed of the City's Director of Neighborhood Resources, the School District 11 Budget Director, the Director of the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency, the Director of School District 11's Office of School Community Relations, and the Principal of West Junior High School," explained 101

PAGE 113

Amelia. It is important to note that the principal serves on both the Joint Management Team which is a site-level management team and the appeals committee which involves members of the respective parent organizations. "'Any decisions which cannot be made at this second-level go to the Superintendent of Schools and City Manager for resolution, with the final step in the appeals process being negotiations between the School Board and City Council. There have been no appeals made to this point in the partnership," continued William. Third, responsibilities of the principal have changed. "The principal now serves a dual role as Principal of the School and Director of the Center. Assistant principals have assumed many of the duties traditionally assigned to the principal," remarked Timothy. "There was one point in the process where there was so much to do we could have worked 24 hours a day and still not have gotten it all done," Winston said and continued, "On some days, members of the administrative team did work up to 20 hours a day. The was in meetings both in and out of the building almost everyday. There was no other choice, 102

PAGE 114

but to reassign some of the duties." Fourth, the former West Junior High School Effectiveness Team, consisting of 22 school staff members, has been changed to the Leadership Council. The Leadership Council is composed of nine school staff members and two partner representatives for a total of eleven persons. "The purpose of the new council is similar to that of the former School Effectiveness Team, to provide staff input into the decision making process on school issues. Each member of the Leadership Council is the leader of a "strand" composed of between five and eight community center and school staff members," explained Amelia. This, theoretically and logistically, allows all persons in the community center a voice in the decision making process. There are significant changes planned for the school as a result of the partnership. Many of these changes developed as the respective partners interacted once the partnership formed. As Winston discussed: Once we began working on the building project we also began thinking about how we could work together as partners. It is then 103

PAGE 115

that we realized the potential for designing our center. The principal of the school was strongly in favor of integrating classes with community members so we started talking about how we could do that. She wanted strong connections with the community so we discussed ways to incorporate city community programs with school programs. The city wanted a 'life center' so the architect built a medical facility into the plans along with a social services area. Billie Spielman needed space for a pantry, offices and so on. Then we started talking about how we could utilize the specialties of the other partners to supplement our own missions. For the school and the city, a teen center was planned as well as other methods to bring all parties together. The direction the partnership has taken is based upon the potential of the partners working together. There have been directions set which will have an impact on school improvement. As Howard describes, "Service delivery to students has added new dimensions to the school. Classes will soon be offered which will combine junior high school students and senior citizens in the same classes." Lori continued: Mingling of seniors and junior high students has already begun in the art department where adult education classes are currently being housed in the same room. On several occasions, students have expressed an interest in taking the community class rather than the school art class. Adult students in the community class also 104

PAGE 116

expressed a desire to learn in the junior high school art class. The school improvement plan calls for the integration of senior citizens with students at west to serve as role models, tutors, and mentors during the school day. "The Leadership Council is in the process of developing this concept. A volunteer chairperson has been recruited to coordinate this effort, and senior citizens are currently active in several junior high classes," described Hilla:ry who continued, "It is not an easy process organizing this on a school-wide level. There does seem to be a lot of interest, but we just have not fully implemented the plan yet." Classes and recreational opportunities through Center programs are available to all community members including junior high school students. One program of potential significant impact to the junior high school involves the teen center. As yet undefined, the city will soon be hiring a person to facilitate teen activities and orchestrate programs for neighborhood youth. It has been proposed that a teen council be developed to provide input into the development of new programs. "I think this is an 105

PAGE 117

area which will significantly impact the student population," said Troy who continued, "When this is in place, students will have opportunities for recreation after school and on weekends. Those with emptiness in their lives will have a place to go rather than hang out with gangs and other undesirable persons." What was West Junior High School is now a Community Life Center. Limited medical assistance, social services assistance, and senior citizen activities are among the new services that have been added to the facility. "It was the intention of the teams planning programs and facilities usage that by helping families in need, West students will also be helped" explained Warren. Oliver agreed: If kids are coming to school hungry or if no one is there at night when they go home, their mind isn't focused on what it should be. We wanted to create a nurturing environment to put kids at ease. This is different from what my impression of schools has been. It is a holistic approach as to how we take care of kids as well as the people in the neighborhood. If parents know that their kids are going to be taken care of after school in a supervised activity, then they can concentrate on what they need to do. It is a mutual benefit for 106

PAGE 118

all. Much of the credit for this goes to the principal who educated us about these needs. A preschool for neighborhood children is now functioning and providing services for approximately 25 children. The Joint Initiatives Program has begun working in the Center with the development of the MultiAgency Staffing Team to meet the needs of students and their families in crisis. "The purpose of this team was originally to streamline services to families who need immediate assistance, but as we met over the past year, we have expanded our role to include family interventions for prevention, explained Winston. As many of the partners described, the medical complex will provide needed senior services such as toe nail trimming, blood pressure checks, health screening, etc. Senior citizen meals are provided on a daily basis. A food pantry for low income families is available. Job training through JTPA is being developed as well as budget counseling, and the list goes on. It has been noted that the real success of the Center is that services are provided in a manner that integrates the agencies, the clients, and the community. The 107

PAGE 119

integration is still under way and undetermined as to where the future path might lead or what new dimensions will be added to the partnership. "The decision to combine community agencies at a singular site with the accompanying philosophy of integrating activities, programs, and services is an outstanding example of improving service delivery through community collaboration," declared Brian who also expressed, "Simultaneously, the community's human service needs are being addressed in a comprehensive and unique manner based upon those needs." Hence, through this process, service delivery efficiency by non-duplicity, scope of curriculum, and community involvement will provide strong impetus for school improvement. One example of how this coordination adds to efficiency is the jointly prepared Program Guide. "The partnership has eliminated duplicity of services while reducing cost of preparation, production, and publicity by working collaboratively," continued Brian. "The school is no longer isolated from the community by noninvolvement, rather, the school is now part of the community and is a component of a larger organization 108

PAGE 120

addressing the needs of the entire community," said Hillary. It is anticipated that the establishment of the community center will result in more human resources becoming available to the school. These increased human resources will help meet the increasing demands placed upon the school by society. This has already started to materialize. "Volunteers are actively working in school classrooms. A contractor has volunteered his company's services at cost to install noise reduction materials for the hallways, and a grant writer has offered reduced fees for obtaining funding for center projects," remarked Troy. Financially, there is a formal agreement between the city and the school district that states, "The city and the school district shall share the cost of maintaining the center on an equitable basis." Programming to accomplish this task is under way. The arrangements made for building construction demonstrated that there may be additional financial resources available at a later date. The interactiveness of the partnership was considered to be very high during this "design phase" 109

PAGE 121

of the partnership. Perhaps the greatest indicators of interactiveness came with the development of substructures for governance of the Center involving all partners, strong endorsements from leaders to pursue the idea and complete the project, and several common endeavors which solidified the partners through shared decision making, common planning, regularly scheduled meeting times, and building trust. New perspectives expressed by members of each partnership group demonstrated increased understanding of the problems faced by each organization. "High levels of communication among partners with a communication loop that provided for teacher input into the process and high visibility of partners in the building encouraged interaction among all," explained Winston. This concept is further discussed by Oliver: The cooperation between agencies which existed at the developmental level through partnership is being transferred to the classroom. In the classroom these agencies will be interactive. The city and the District will have instructors in the room at the same time and each will have patrons in the room at the same time. In a 110

PAGE 122

community service effort, the kids from the school will be cooperating with Billie Spielman. The interactiveness of the partnership, after grand opening with the major common endeavors accomplished, began to fall off as partners refocused their attention toward the mission of their parent organizations. As Steven remarked: We each had so much to do within our own organizations that we had to get back to our traditional jobs. I think it was summer that really hurt the cooperation and communication. The kids were gone and so was the staff. It was really quiet around here without all of the activity, the meetings, and the decisions that had to be made. I think the support from our leaders have been partially withdrawn also. This may be a factor. As Dexter also supported this concept: Sometimes the best interest of the organization is not in the best interest of the common operation. Partners sometimes have to be loyal to the partnership organization over what is in the best interest of the parent organization. There comes a point, however, when the interests of the parent organization deems consideration so as not to lose support from them for the project. When speaking abstractly about partnership, school improvement, and cooperation, there were many statements which support this type of partnership and 111

PAGE 123

their role in promoting school improvement. Anna described that: Good things can be achieved even in difficult financial times. Private individuals will donate funds for a good cause. When agencies want to cooperate on a project, it can work for everybody's benefit. Each organization can enhance and streamline its mission. If its providing recreation, then the additional resources can help. If its educating our children, then the additional resources can help. Bernard discussed: The school has to be greater than just educational aspects because the needs of the people in the community are greater. This philosophy is a new perspective for many people involved in this partnership as it was for me. I did not understand the problems the schools face today until I became part of this place. If the needs of the kids are for physical resources, nurturing, or other things then the needs of the community are probably similar. When these needs are met in the school, it puts the kids at ease. It is a holistic approach to education which involves meeting both student and community needs. It is mutually beneficial for both sides. This is the concept of mutual benefit and I believe we are doing that through this partnership. Francis illuminated: The partnership has helped the school understand that the community is a resource and now it has the expertise to tap that resource. The school and school personnel now understand that they are not alone, but are a part of the community. It is the 112

PAGE 124

community that can work in conjunction with the school to better educate our children. Regarding the process of partnering, Cheryl elucidated: The process of partnering takes very much time and energy. There is considerable time spent in coordinating with the other agencies. Once a level of trust and credence is reached over time, then the process has integrity and the goal can be achieved. That process takes very much time. One thing that contributes. to the increased time involved in partnering is that there is not one final authority for the decision making process. There is no board, or superintendent, or decision making authority. All decisions are cooperatively reached with some element of negotiation until all partners agree. The process holds ownership by each organization and with that ownership comes commitment. Kathryn expounded: Organizations have a way of intimidating individuals. When you have the opportunity to work with individuals in the organization, some of the barriers break down and the organization is less intimidating. Greater lines of communication are established when agencies work in partnership and share common understandings. On March 12, 1992, construction was completed and on March 13, Grand Opening was held. Well over 2,000 people attended the ceremony which lasted for several hours. Community performers contributed to 113

PAGE 125

the festiveness of the occasion performing in the newly remodeled auditorium, food was served in the cafeteria, and tours of the facility were led by west students. This event, while being the culmination of the first major operational test of the partnership, proved to be extremely successful. As Bernard summarizes, "This project and the partnership has revitalized the school. Most people don't understand the significance of this turn around." Results: School Improvement Survey Results The questionnaire revealed motives of the partners, building and staff changes, and positive and adverse effects as a result of the partnership. Tables displaying statistical results are contained in Appendix E. General aggregate results. General aggregate results were tabulated by analysis of the data from several different perspectives. These perspectives 114

PAGE 126

were: the general mean for the population; an analysis of individual statements; a statement analysis by change/motive area, administration, finance, service delivery, and facility; and frequency of responses by statement. General mean. The mean for the population was 1.86. This mean score fell between the two responses 1 (will greatly improve the school) and 2 (will improve the school) for the overall changes in the school as a result of the partnership. This indicates that the changes in the school structure and motives of the partners will improve the school. Statement analysis. An analysis of the individual statements was completed with statements placed on a continuum for school improvement from least school improvement to most school improvement. This continuum is displayed in Table 1. Statement six ranked the highest on the individual analysis with which is very close to the maximum of 1.0 score. This indicates that the change most likely to result in school improvement is renovation of the existing facility. 115

PAGE 127

Statement Six: The existing facility, West Junior High School, was renovated with changes to the computer room, auditorium, art room, music rooms, weight room, and band room. The statement rated at the other end of the continuum was Statement three with Statement Three: Responsibilities of the principal have changed. The principal now serves a dual role as Principal of the school and Director of the Center. Assistant principals have assumed many of the duties traditionally assigned to the principal. This statement addresses administrative responsibilities within the partnership and indicates that administrative responsibilities are the least likely to improve the school and may have no effect on it. When cross referenced with the open-ended questions on the survey, the concern that the administrators' time would be taken up by the additional duties of the Center ranked highest for possible adverse effects upon the school. An analysis of statement responses by area was completed. This analysis indicates that the general area receiving the highest rating for school improvement was service delivery followed by facility, and finance and administration (see Table 116

PAGE 128

2). When cross-referenced with the open-ended questions, service delivery rated the highest in number of responses for producing school improvement. An analysis of the frequency of responses for all statements was completed with results indicating that of the 636 possible responses for the population surveyed, 556 (87%) statements were rated as either 1 or 2; 60 (9%) statements were rated 3; and 50 (8%) statements were rated as 4 or 5. This data is displayed in Table 3. Results of this frequency support the idea that the changes to the school resulting from the partnership will improve the school. Site cohort aggregate analysis. An analysis of the data was made on the Cohort Group regarding participants being either at the site (At Site, n=37) or not at the site (Not at Site, n=16). Table 4 displays this data. The group identified as "Not at Site" rated the scored statements higher than those "at Site" Both means fell between the rating of 1 and 2 indicating that the partnership will improve the school. 117

PAGE 129

Position/relationship cohort analysis. This cohort group was divided into five sub-groups with one additional group of unknown respondents. The comparison of mean scores was completed and the groups were ranked from highest to lowest in rating the partnership for school improvement. The means of all groups were above 3 indicating that the partnership would improve the school. The highest ranking group was parents with n=4; and the group rating the partnership lowest was the Educational Support Personnel, i.e., custodians, secretaries, and so on, with n=9. Table 5 displays this data by mean score. School Improvement/Adverse Effects from Open-ended Questions Open-ended survey question analysis. Two openended questions were asked at the end of the survey. Results of these questions are presented in Table 6. School improvement. The most frequently cited area for the question "In what way will the partnership most improve the school?" was in the area 118

PAGE 130

of "Service Delivery." A general summary statement regarding the effects of service delivery on the school is: mixing of generations will serve students with increased understanding of the broader world and will provide additional resources for educational delivery (see Table 7). This category of answers was followed by another which described increased service availability to students as improving the school. A general summary statement of this category is: the Center will provide increased program and service opportunities which will assist families; students will have improved attendance, achievement, through an improved family structure. Thus, when crossreferenced with survey statements, it appears that through service delivery changes to the school, the partnership is perceived to have the greatest effect on school improvement. There were many responses in areas other than the four identified in the study. Of the other statement responses, the most frequently cited reason for school improvement was attributed to the increased cooperation among partners, parents, and community members (see Table 8). The second most 119

PAGE 131

frequently cited reason for improving the school was that of community awareness. A summary statement of this area is: the school will improve because a positive image will be given to the school through increased participation by the community. Adverse effects upon the school. The most frequently cited adverse effect the partnership may have upon the school is that school principals' time was taken away from the school staff and students in dealing with the increased responsibilities of the Center. There were several calls for a new position to be created as Director of the Center so the principal and assistant principals could specialize in school matters. This area was by far the most frequently cited reason the partnership may adversely affect the school (see Table 9). There were also a series of statements which were not applicable to any of the four areas used in the study (see Table 10). Of the other reasons stated, the most frequently cited reason for adverse effects upon the school was that there are many additional tasks, meetings, and other responsibilities now assigned to 120

PAGE 132

teachers and other staff and these items take needed time away from the school and the students. Other Quantitative Measures Data was collected on several quantitative characteristics of the students and school. These areas were student achievement as measured by test scores, student attendance data, school and community center programs and services, and facility usage. Student achievement test scores. The information reported in Table 11 reflects growth in student achievement during the transition period. From the beginning of school through March 13, 1992, the school facility was under construction. Students attended classes in the facility during this time often having to have their classroom changed several times due to the construction. On the District Achievement Level Test (DALT), all scores for West Junior High School are below the district average. The seventh grade did outperform the district in percentage of improvement, however, the eighth grade did not. 121

PAGE 133

Similar results were obtained on Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) results with West scoring below district averages in nearly all categories. It should be noted that West did score within the average range when their scores were compared with national norms. In summary, there were no conclusive results obtained from achievement test data. Student attendance. Student attendance over the period from 1988 through 1992 remained stable at 92%. Programs and services. Programs and services at the site increased dramatically as a result of the partnership (see Table 12). Although no information as to the number of students being serviced by these programs is available, student participation is expected to increase as promotional efforts are established. The number of persons (excluding junior high school students) using the facility has increased dramatically because of the increased programs and services (see Table 13) offered by the partnership. 122

PAGE 134

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, APPLICATION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This chapter is divided into five sections: 1) the nature of the partnership, 2) conclusions drawn from the findings, 3) application of the findings from the case study to the literature, 4) how these types of partnerships can improve public education, and 5) recommendations for future study. The "Nature of the Partnership" section describes the partnership in terms of the structural nature of the partnership as it relates to the educational and political science literature and to the intrinsic nature of the partnership from the perspective of Jones and Maloy (1988). In the "Conclusions" section, inferences are drawn by the researcher from the findings of the Colorado Case Study. Conclusions are presented and 123

PAGE 135

new perspectives on partnerships are offered. The "Application" section relates findings of the Colorado Case Study and conclusions to the literature on partnerships. Particular emphasis is placed on the political science literature, the Goodlad (1987) needs dominating the national agenda for school improvement presented in Chapter 1, and Jones and Maloy's (1988) theory of partnerships. The section "How Can This Type of Partnership Improve Public Education?" discusses implications of the case study as a process for school improvement and considers the potentials of this type of partnership in improving public education. Both the "Application" section and this section provide elaboration on the nature of the partnership. The "Implications for Further Research" section presents suggestions for further study. The Nature of the Partnership Both the educational literature and the political science literature provide frames of reference which address the structural nature of this 124

PAGE 136

partnership. From the educational perspective, this partnership may be categorized as a school-public agency partnership. From the political science perspective, this partnership may be categorized as an intergovernmental network. Individually, all partner use public and private funds in the accomplishment of their organizational missions. Collectively, the partnership combines both public and private funds in the meeting of community needs. In a common effort, the partnership reduces duplicity of services to the community through collaboration and sharing of facilities. Competition for public funds among the partner organizations is also reduced by sharing resources for the common good. Intrinsically, the nature of the partnership may be described as interactive and based upon motives which correspond with the ideas of Jones and Maloy (1988) in their book Partnerships for Improving Schools. The rationale of the partners for entering into the partnership were initially based upon "you have/we need" interchanges where all stakeholders identified motives consistent with their respective organizational needs. These interchanges, while 125

PAGE 137

creating closer ties among the organizations, grew through interaction into a partnership which altered the perspectives of all. The design phase of the partnership fostered interactions among partners which generated new learning processes, promoted strong communication and collaboration, defined new roles and responsibilities in a new setting, and increased understandings about each other, the respective organizations, the school, and education in general for all participants. rt was during these interactions that the stakeholders rated the interactiveness of the partnership as high. Thus, what began as an arrangement to provide mutual benefits for each organization developed over time into an interactive partnership. It was through this high level of interactiveness that new ideas emerged which altered the processes and structures of education at West Junior High School to meet the unique needs of the school. Through the process of partnership, the primary structures of service delivery, facility, finance, and governance were altered to reflect the new understandings about the school. This resulted in a restructured school. 126

PAGE 138

Hence, the structural nature of the partnership may be described in both the frameworks of the education literature and the political science literature. Intrinsically, the nature of the partnership may be described as interactive and based upon "you have/we need" motives. What began as an agreement to meet the needs of the partner organizations developed through communication and collaboration into an interactive partnership which, in turn, altered the structures of the school to meet the unique needs of the school. In the section which follows, conclusions from the findings are presented which extend the ideas of Jones and Maloy (1988) regarding the nature of motives for entering into school-public agency partnerships. These conclusions identify environmental conditions as impetus for motives to develop, create two categories of motives within the "you have/we need" context, and establish the categories of motives as influencing the direction of the partnership leading to school improvement. Additionally, other conclusions are drawn from the findings which address the general nature of school-127

PAGE 139

public agency partnerships, the possibilities of school improvement from the restructuring of the school, and new perspectives on school-public agency partnerships. Conclusions There were 10 conclusions from this study which are clustered into two sets. The first set contains conclusions inferred from the motives of the partners for entering into partnership. The second set is related to interagency partnerships generally. New perspectives are included in this section, which while not conclusions, do serve to provide additional insight into the partnership process among governmental agencies. Conclusions: Set One 1. The motives of the partners were of two types: primary and secondary. Primary motives were those motives which provided impetus for the partnership to crystallize initially while secondary 128

PAGE 140

motives were those motives which were identified after the partnership was conceived. 2. The primary motives of intergovernmental partners are stimulated by the environment of the times. In this case, the environment was characterized by financial scarcity for governmental organizations, a philosophy of devolution promoting intergovernmental cooperation, and a concern that if the school closes, the community will deteriorate. None of the partners could have accomplished their facility objectives without the other partner's money or resources. 3. Partnerships develop from primary motives which relate specifically to the organizational missions of the parent organizations. 4. While it is the primary motives which are the impetus for this partnership to crystallize, it is the secondary motives which provide direction for the partnership. It is through the secondary motives that the structural changes to school finance, service delivery, facility, and governance were made. These, in turn, provide direction for the partnership, can be described as "new directions from partnering," and may happen simultaneous to, 129

PAGE 141

immediately after, or long after the partnership is established. They may lead the partnership in unpredictable directions and are responsible for school improvement. Conclusions: Set Two 1. Restructuring the service delivery mechanism of the school and renovation of the existing facility will result in school improvement. 2. Schooling may be adversely affected by the additional responsibilities and time requirements mandated by the partnership process. Partnerships require additional responsibilities from school administrators. These take time to accomplish. and must be completed in addition to the regular duty assignments of the administrators. These responsibilities and time requirements, if not accounted for by additional man power, inhibit the completion of the regular assigned duties of the partners. This leaves the school staff feeling unsupported and alienated from the administration. 3. Partnerships take commitment from persons in all 130

PAGE 142

organizations at all levels. Any change in personnel creates the potential for the partnership to fail. Long term agreements need to be developed and finalized before personnel shifts occur. New participants should be hired who have the ability and inclination to work in partnership. 4. Partnerships take time to implement structural changes to the school. School improvement may not be demonstrated for months or even years after all restructuring has been completed. 5. It appears the restructuring of this school by the partnership will result in school improvement. The amount of school improvement resulting from the restructuring cannot be determined until all structural changes, especially in the area of service delivery, are fully implemented. 6. Interagency partnerships offer strong potential for promoting school improvement. New Perspectives There were several new perspectives gained from this study which either extend or add new dimensions 131

PAGE 143

to the current research regarding intergovernmental partnerships. 1. Partnerships, in order to remain interactive, contain two key components which stimulate interactiveness. First, partnerships need to have common endeavors, i.e., joint projects, to stimulate interaction. Second, partnerships need endorsements from leaders of parent organizations supporting the partnership and reinforcing continued cooperation. 2. Once partnerships reach stasis and no longer work together to accomplish a common endeavor, parent organizations reclaim the time and energies of their people and focus may be placed on accomplishment of the mission of the parent organization. This can be described as organizational drift back to the parent organization. In order to remain interactive, it is necessary to engage in new common endeavors. This will have the additional purpose of stimulating growth in the partnership. 3. Partnership among organizations takes additional time and money to adequately facilitate and may place additional stress on the participants if not planned for at inception. Some of the saving in service 132

PAGE 144

delivery and facility in the Colorado case study was initially offset by the additional administrative requirements of the partnership. These needs have not been accounted for to this point in the partnership which appears to be resulting in additional stress being placed upon the administration and the staff of the school. 4. The combining of community members in mentorships, as tutors, and as role models will benefit the students by meeting needs which were currently not being met at home for many students. This will improve the school, in a service delivery sense, by meeting needs of students which the school could not do alone. The uniting of community members with the school will enlighten those members to the problems existing in the schools and help to make them aware of the needed reforms in education. Service provision from several cooperating agencies, each a specialist in its form of service, will improve the school because a number of services needed by students and families will be provided at one site. Families can now get assistance, thereby, increasing the possibilities that students will have 133

PAGE 145

support from their horne and perform better in school. 5. When a school closes, the focal point for the community is lost. The results can be devastating for city governments in that community deterioration may result as persons move out of the community to be near the school their children attend. It is in the interest of both school districts and city governments to keep community schools open. This may be considered environmental and may serve as a primary motive for intergovernmental agency partnerships. 6. Individual school needs can be ameliorated by strategies developed through secondary motives of the partnership. These strategies can be custom designed to meet both school and community needs simultaneously. Application There is a large volume of descriptive literature addressing current partnership arrangements combining schools with businesses, parents, institutions of higher education, and public 134

PAGE 146

institutions. Very few of these do more than describe existing or previously existing situations. Interg'overnmental relations and intergovernmental management concepts from the literature on public affairs and political science offer insight into cooperation through interorganizational networks. These can be positively compared with educational interagency partnerships for additional perspectives on cooperation through management, power in the organization, and decision making. Implications implicit in both sets of literature are the reduction of duplicity in service delivery and reduced competition for existing resources. In the case presented in this study, service delivery to the school ranked quantitatively the highest by area for overall improvement resulting from the partnership. This pattern also held true for cohort group analysis. The content of these service delivery changes were generally identified as having: 1) community members involved to some extent in classes with students, 2) increased educational opportunities for students, and 3) an expanded range 135

PAGE 147

of services for the community at the center. Included in these findings was the concept of mutual benefit which, in practice, provides services to both community members and school students at one site, thus streamlining the type, availability, and number of educational opportunities. In conjunction with these findings on school improvement, the reduction of duplicity in services and facilities was also identified as a benefit of partnership. The facts substantiate this finding by demonstrating that the pooling of money to renovate the facility and the streamlining of services by partner organizations reduced duplicity in both service provision and facilities in the community. This case study also demonstrates that competition for tax dollars is reduced by agencies entering into partnership. Although this concept is presented in several ways in the case description, it is best described through the concept of leveraging. Leveraging, as it related to this partnership, was described as taking those who have small pockets and combining money to create something bigger. In this process, the needs of the community can be met by 136

PAGE 148

combining money, services, and facilities in a common interagency effort. As Alex described, "It maximizes everybody's non-profit tax dollars while obtaining the synergistic benefits." Thus, the literature on intergovernmental relations and intergovernmental management compare positively with the findings of the Colorado Case Study. Positive comparisons are also established when the Theory of Interactive Partnerships proposed by Jones and Maloy (1988) and the needs identified by Goodlad (1987) are referenced to the case study. Goodlad (1987, p. iii) identified three needs that dominate the national agenda for school improvement: 1) enlightened dialogue about education, 2) policies that support good education, and 3) well-designed strategies for improving schools. Interagency partnerships, as described in this study, have the potential for meeting each of these needs. Enlightened dialogue about education. This partnership, while having impetus in motives other than for improving the school, developed secondary motives which targeted school improvement as a motive 137

PAGE 149

of all partners. The primary motives were based upon a "you have/we need" relationship between the partner organizations as described by Jones and Maloy (1988). These secondary motives developed as a result of increased communication through interactions during the design phase of the partnership and can be attributed to dialogue among partners. This dialogue was established through the sharing of information among organizations regarding the vision, mission, and organizational culture of each parent organization. From this dialogue came identification of school needs that each 6rganization could help to meet working cooperatively, yet could not meet independently. Thus, each organization through dialogue, was to the organizational culture of the school, obtained first-hand experience about what schools are like today, and specifically learned about the unique needs of the setting of this school. It was with a high level of "interactiveness" as described by Jones and Maloy (1988) that this dialogue was created thus serving to "encourage people to think about better schools" (Jones & Maloy, 1988, p.6). This understanding resulted in new 138

PAGE 150

policies which directly influenced the structure of the school. Hence, this interagency partnership provided enlightened dialogue about education and involved members from each agency in the partnership. Policies that support good education. Because of this dialogue, then, the school was restructured in the areas of governance, facility, service delivery, and finance. This restructuring brought about new policies which were directly related to the needs of the school and which were most likely to improve the school. By becoming involved in the educational process, exposure to individual schools and school districts, other governmental agencies can work cooperatively to create policies which are responsive to school and student needs .thus serving to improve the school. From these policies came structural changes which developed into specific strategies for school improvement. Hence, this partnership promoted policy development which resulted in the restructuring of the school. Interagency partnerships can serve to promote "good education." Well-designed strategies to improve schools. 139

PAGE 151

Through common planning, policy adjustments resulting in structural changes, and increased knowledge of the educational system, came specific strategies to improve the school. In this case, the strategies included enlisting community members as resources for students, modifying the facility to better address student needs, and exposing teachers and staff to other "powerful groups and individuals" who can share insight into the educational process with them. In each of these strategies, individual school needs are being addressed by a broader group than the education community. Interactive partnerships promote the proposition that daily activities of all partners are changed by the infusion of alternative understandings about teaching and education. It was through these "understandings" that the strategies were developed that have potential for promoting school improvement. Many more people are now involved in the process of education at the local level and are in positions to be influential in policy development and strategy implementation. Thus, interagency partnerships promote well designed strategies to improve schools. It is unknown what the final effects of this 140

PAGE 152

partnership will be on school improvement. All quantitative data on student characteristics and performance were inconclusive with no clear trends for improvement or decline. Theoretically, many of the structural changes in service delivery have not occurred and are still being designed. Therefore, those that are in effect have just begun. Thus, it may be several years before the restructuring will demonstrate an obvious effect upon student characteristics. The number of services and programs now available to the community has dramatically increased since the partnership restructured the school. Total services provided increased 733% which has resulted in a 280% increase of persons using the facility. Again, it is unknown what effect this aspect of the partnership will have over time on the school. Bringing the community to the school was a secondary motive for the school and was ranked high for its potential for school improvement. The three criteria identified by Goodlad were met in a local initiative and the tenets of "interactive partnerships" proposed by Jones and 141

PAGE 153

Maloy are being accomplished. It must be noted that governmental interagency partnerships can differ significantly from other types of partnerships in that their motives for entering into partnership initially appear to be more closely aligned with the mission of the parent organization rather than from an interest in improving education. Singularly, the most important potential result from partnerships of this type is the exposure other people in powerful organizations receive as a result from exposure to the public school system and first hand experience in working through the problems associated with youth today in a local setting. This, combined with the power to be influential in the decision making process, yields potential for school improvement. How Can This Type of Partnership Improve Public Education? The Colorado Springs partnership can be characterized as a governmental interagency partnership as is promoted in the educational literature, and as a governmental inter-142 -----------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 154

organizational network, as described in the political science and public affairs literature. Partnerships of this type, while generally untested for improving schools, have been described. Resulting from this partnership, there are strong indications that this type of partnership can effectively improve schools, but this is dependent upon the environment of the specific situation. First, it must be assumed that environmental conditions are conducive for this type of partnership to develop. In order for this to happen, there must be a political philosophy supporting local control of government to best meet the needs of the community. This was provided in this case by devolution at the national and state levels encouraging local governments to seek solutions for community problems. Second, there are organizational motives for entering into these types of partnerships which are based upon cooperation to meet some need which the parent organizations cannot meet acting alone. These primary motives may not be focused to improve the school. After partnership initiation from primary motives, the development of secondary motives occurs 143

PAGE 155

as the respective organizations plan jointly and engage in common endeavors, communicate, build trust, and plan for the future. These secondary motives begin during the design phase while the organizational network is interacting. If the respective organizations develop motives which are designed to improve the school, then these motives can be placed into an operational plan which will eventually result in restructuring and reform of the school to meet the unique and individual needs created during secondary motive development. This operational plan can be implemented which will result in an array of services being provided which will have the effect of improving the school while being within each partner's organizational mission. This partnership, during the design phase, chose to combine planning for services so duplication could be minimized and share a facility to save public money. This was mutually beneficial for all partners. The partnership also sought to design this new service provision so that it would directly apply to meeting previously identified needs of the school. In this case, it was to bring adult members from the 144

PAGE 156

community into the school setting as additional resources for the students. Thus, if in the design phase of the partnership, school improvement develops as a motive for all of the organizations participating, then programs and services can be designed which will work to improve the school. Third, in order for these types of partnerships to be viable for school improvement, they must eventually develop a means to protect themselves from the political climate of the times. This partnership has not done this and is possibly at risk of not staying interactive. This can be done through several means. One, in particular, is the 501-C-3 not-for-profit status. If the partnership loses its interactiveness, organizational drift will develop and each partner will focus back to the parent organization in the accomplishment of its mission and the partnership will become secondary. It is established in inter-organizational networks that power comes from each organization remaining active within the partnership. The standard method of withdrawing from the partnership is through retreat to the parent organization. In this partnership, 145

PAGE 157

there is a strong possibility that each partner will completely focus on the parent organization and serve the partnership by merely sharing space. There are possible logistical and structural mechanisms of partnerships which could effect the school. There is not much written about the ways and means of partnerships and certain pitfalls may exist which could be planned for from inception. First, the amount of time required in the development and management of a partnership of this magnitude mus t be recognized from the beginning. If the parent organizations are not willing to provide extra man power to meet the additional requirements of the partnership, frustration, stress, and lack of focus can result. Second, these extra responsibilities often involve additional money to get the programs started before any real financial benefit can or will be realized. Without the endorsements from leaders of the respective parent organizations, the planning for the additional time and money, stakeholders are apt to be less interactive and revert to the primary motives which initially served as impetus for the 146

PAGE 158

partnership at inception. Third, there is strong evidence to support that personnel stability is a key factor in keeping the partnership interactive. The infusion of a key decision maker in either the parent organization or the partnership at site may serve to create hurdles which may prove to be insurmountable for the partnership and the original motives will be like magnets. This partnership has tested this by the infusion of a new key administrator who has proven to have little support for the partnership in concept or implementation. This factor has had significant impact on the partnership causing the representative to refocus on the parent organization and not have the time nor the endorsement to continue strong involvement with the partnership. Thus, it is likely that this partner's role in the partnership will be to merely share space in the building. In summary, there is a potential for interagency partnerships to result in school improvement. Conditions must be right for the leaders to think about partnership and networking which permit primary motives to develop and provide impetus. Once the 147

PAGE 159

partnership is established, secondary motives need to emerge which will result in the partnership planning for school improvement. There are pitfalls which potentially may affect the interactiveness of the partnership and it is through interactiveness that the partnership has the ability to maximize its potential. Thus, if conditions are right, these types of partnerships can truly affect the school for school improvement. However, if conditions are not right, the partnership can put additional burdens upon the school which could result in participant frustration. Implications for Future Research This study of interagency partnerships indicates that partnerships of this type have potential for improving public education. There is, however, a need to continue to study partnerships of this type to accumulate a body of research specific to intergovernmental networks which include education, school districts, and individual schools. Further, this study contained certain limitations which, with 148

PAGE 160

further inquiry, could add additional perspectives to the field. 1. There is a need to establish a relationship between the costs of partnership in additional management, facility, program, services, and the cost of these organizations continuing in the traditional fashion. This should give a quantitative account of the actual saving rather than the fact that there are projected savings of taxpayer dollars. 2. There is a need to continue this study in a longitudinal format which will last over a period of years to determine: 1) the new directions the partnership takes, 2) the degree of improvement which students eventually exhibit as a result of the planned restructuring of services which have not been accomplished at publication. 3. There is a need to study the effects of school closures on the community in other geographical areas and in other socioeconomic neighborhoods. If the pattern existing in Colorado Springs is common to other geographic regions or similar to other socioeconomic communities, then this could affect school district policies on closing schools. 149

PAGE 161

4. There is a need to continue to study other interagency partnerships or inter-organizational networks to corroborate the findings of this study. 150

PAGE 162

APPENDIX A EVALUATION QUESTIONS 151

PAGE 163

Evaluation Questions and Analysis Outline Question One: Analysis Outline Question: How was the school restructured in the areas of governance, service delivery, finance, and facility as a result of the partnership? What other structures were changed and what changes are projected as a result of the partnership? Analysis: Level One: Data Collection and Analysis. Conceptual categories were established, and data from multiple sources was collected, sorted, and placed into the appropriate categories in the evidentiary data base (Section 1). Each bit of data was coded so as to identify the changes made to the school and planned future changes that can be attributed to the partnership. Conceptual Categories School Structure: Governance School Structure: Finance School Structure: Service Delivery School Structure: Facility School Structure: Other School Structure: Projected Changes Code 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F Leyel Two: Data Collection and Analysis. The changes identified in Level One were combined with the motives identified in question three and a questionnaire was developed to identify the perceived school improvement as a result of the partnership. Question Two: Analysis Outline Question: According to Jones and Maloy (1988), partnerships that are interactive have the effect of improving the school. Can this partnership be described as interactive? A) What key indicators and main features of interactive partnerships, as described by Jones and Maloy (1988), does the partnership exhibit during the 152

PAGE 164

time frame studied? B) Grounded upon the data in question 2A, what are the implications for this partnership improving the school? Analysis: Level One: Data Collection and Analysis. Conceptual categories were established; data from multiple sources was collected, sorted, and placed into the evidentiary data base (Section 2). Each bit of data was coded so as to provide the amount of interaction exhibited by the partnership. Each category was evaluated to determine the amount of interactiveness exhibited. Concentual categories Communication among partners Building trust Sharing personal assessments of strengths and weaknesses Common endeavors New perspectives Endorsements form leaders Substructures for governance Formal processes for assessment and renegotiation Overlapping interests/institutional purposes New resources Information sharing Community resources Association of teachers to other groups (partners) Decision making at lowest level Voluntary, cooperative, flexible Code 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 2H 2I 2J 2K 2L 2M 2N 20 Level Two: Data collection and analysis. The degree of interactiveness was placed upon a continuum and implications for school improvement were identified. Evaluation Question Three: Analysis Outline Question: What were the motives of each partner for 153

PAGE 165

entering into the partnership and how do these motives relate to school improvement? A) What were the motives of the school, the School District, the City of Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak Community Action Agency for entering into the partnership? Analysis: Level One: Data Collection and Analysis. Conceptual categories were established, and data from multiple sources was collected, sorted, and placed into the appropriate categories in the evidentiary data base (Section 3). Each bit of data was coded so as to provide analysis of the motives of each partner for entering into the partnership. Conceptual Categories Motives of PPCAA Motives of School District 11 Motives of City of Colorado Springs Motives of West Junior High School Code 3A 3B 3C 3D Level Two: Data Collection and Analysis. A questionnaire was developed incorporating the motives identified in Level One with the changes made to the school identified in Evaluation Question 1. This survey was administered to 65 persons who had a working knowledge of the partnership or the restructured school. The data was analyzed to determine the perceived improvement to the school. Evaluation Question Four: Analysis Outline. Question: How can this type of partnership be useful in improving public education? Analysis: Using the information obtained from the data analysis in questions 1, 2 and 3, this question is discussed in Chapter Five. Evaluation Question Five: Analysis Outline. Question: How have student characteristics changed as a result of this partnership? 154

PAGE 166

A) What was the student attendance rate in June of 1990, June of 1991, and June 1992? What was the percentage gain or loss between these periods? B) What were the student composite scores on the DALT Reading and Math Test in the fall of 1990, spring of 1991, fall of 1991, spring of 1992? What was the percentage gain or loss during these time periods? Analysis: Student attendance data and Dalt Test data for the respective periods was collected. The data was analyzed with the percentage of gain or loss noted. 155

PAGE 167

APPENDIX B EVIDENTIARY DATA BASE 156

PAGE 168

The Evidentiary Data Base The evidentiary base consists of case study notes, documents, tabular materials, narratives, and other data sources. This data base was codified and maintained as separate documents to the final report. The evidentiary data base was established and all data was placed into this data base. The data base was divided into sections, one section for data pertaining to each question. The data collected was sorted on an ongoing basis into conceptual categories and filed into the data base .. Each bit of data was coded as to section, date, participants, researcher observations, question, and conceptual category. A rubber stamp was made and the data was stamped with the appropriate coding. Some bits of data applied to more than one section. In these cases, multiple copies of the data were made and filed as appropriate for the conceptual category. The data was stored in notebooks. Data collected on audio tapes and in other forms was placed into the evidentiary data base in a separate section (non-notebook) Some of this information was printed for examination in "hard copy" 157

PAGE 169

form, coded, and placed into the appropriate section of the data base. nine sections: Section 1: Section 2 : Section 3 : section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8 Section 9: The Evidentiary Data Base contains Data from Evaluation Question 1 Data from Evaluation Question 2 Data from Evaluation Question 3 Data from Evaluation Question 4 Data from Evaluation Question 5 Researcher Notes and Propositions Grounded in the Data Audio Tapes of Interviews with Original Interviewer Notes Completed Survey Forms Other Project Related Data Not Relevant to the Other Sections 158

PAGE 170

APPENDIX C INTERVIEW GUIDES 159

PAGE 171

Interview Guidl: Question One/Level One Schbol Structure I Responses will be recorded anonymously and results will be in the aggregate. One part of this study ilvolves determining how the school structure was changed asl a result of the partnership. In order to do this we must talk about what the school was like at the project's inception (Mayl 1990), then discuss the changes and the resultant school structure at grand opening (March 13, 1992). There are four included as part of the study: 1) the structure of the schbol's governance; 2) the structure of the school's finance; 3)1 the structure of the school's service delivery; and 4) the structure of the school's facility. Question: What was the[ governance structure of the school at the projects inception (May 1990) and what changes were made by Grand Opening in the way! the school is governed? I Question: What was the; financial structure at the project's inception and what were made to the financial structure by Grand Opening? I Question: What was the structure of service delivery at the project's inception and changes were made by grand opening? (the way(s) kids are instructed, schedule, hours, h . I 1 ) teac 1.ng ass1.gnments, curr1.cu urn, etc. I I Question: What was the structure of the school facility at the I project's inception and changes were made by Grand Opening? I I Question: What are the structures of the school that were changed which are not included in the above questions? I Question: What are the hrojected changes in the school structure to be completed in the future which can be directly 1 d re ate to the partners I Who are the other peopleJ that have knowledge of the changes in school structure as a result of the partnership? I What are the measures that can determine the I success of these structural changes? 160

PAGE 172

I Interview Question Three/Level One I I I Motives I Responses will be recorded I will be re:ported in anonymously and the aggregate. results (City Governments, Schooll Districts, Schools, Non-profit Agencies: As Appropriate!) have motives for entering into partnership agreements w 1ith other agencies. I What were the of the (select as appropriate for interviewee: City of Colbrado Springs, Pikes Peak Community Action Agency, School Di1strict Eleven, West Junior High School) for entering into the What benefits were desired as a result of these motkves? = -Contributions -services -financial resources -other What did they have that you needed? Who are the other people: who have knowledge of the motives for entering into this partnership? i What are the quantitative measures which can determine the success of these benefitb? 161

PAGE 173

APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE I 162

PAGE 174

.... November 23, 1992 I I '!"'..:.e West e: !:: i !.:.ce:;ec.e:at:i:l:la!. Lea:.:.i.:lg as c:eaeec! a Dis:::.=: !levee., .. '"' I .. P.:.kes :?eu J.c-ic- .,.C'/ c:.-"" -'c:ty ot Colorado -. --:=.. -:--P-"' D -. Sp:.:..:.;-s. :.s :.e tc:.:.= c: :v -=.sse:-:::.e:.on .:.: c:.. ---- ..,._ ... ____ I .. ':'::.e :;:u:;:cse o: \St':l:i7 is tc :ie':e:--i..:.e t"" i::a=': cc. i=:;:::ve:\e.:.:. .:.s c:. I . ycc t= i.:. :.:..:.s s yet!: ,-.;11 resul:s. Oece=.:e: 4, 15192. I .!:la.re a s:a::e:i e:1velcpe !c: you= cocve!lie:ce. You: pa::.:.:i:;:a:.:.oe adc pe:sona.l o! e::.e I s e!::ec:s o::. i:p:ove:ec.: a:e app:ec.:!.ate you= assist4!lce1 I Si.:lce:ely, I c.. 8..v=L.v..) (j I Ga..: A. I 14.34 Wooci Aveeue 1 Colo:a.C.o Sp:i::l.c;s. Colo::!.C.:I ,80907 Telecb.o.c.e: 719-6.3.3-54.;3 I Paul Bau:an. Ph.D. C'-ai:, Oisser:atio.c. Co=Uttee Uc.iversity of Colo:a.C.c Telephone: 303-556-4849 163 :

PAGE 175

I ... I I i Bigh School, the City of Colorado Springs The ?eak Aqency, has COY become I the Center !ntergenerational Learning. This has brought several changes in the school. of survey is to if You believe :nanges will result in school J.mprovement. I P . 1. ll h ... ... a tne to ovJ.ng to s ow you t:e change indicatJd will impact and mark it in the space :o ::e of the I 2 4 5 I S.::-6le ;:eatly the schocl. w:.:: the sc;,.ool. w:.:.: !:.ave no e.t=+:t on the school. have an oc school. . ,, have a adverse effect on :he school. West Junior 3:ign ;,.as i:een to ii'es-:: =enter .. for al community center. The school is a division ot the center .................... :-. __ 01 The newly created West Center forl!nter;eneratiocal Learning has for=ed a team to mike decisions and policies regarding facility and center programa. Th:.s management team is composed of the School P:incipal, the School/C=mmunity jt.!le City and Facilities and the of the B:.llie Spielman Center, a based agency ................ --02 Responsibilities of t.!le chanqeci. The Principal now serves a dual role as of the school and Director of the Centar. :Principals have assumed many of the tr:sditicnally assigned to the P::.ncipal .... .......... --03 I The School Effectiveness Team. of school staff members, bas been obanqed the Leadership Council. The Leadership Ccuncil is of nine school staff members and tYo partner for a of eleven members. The purpose the is to staff input into the decision process school issues ...................... ____ 04 164

PAGE 176

A 7000 square !cot addition West Junior Hiqh School eas to provide spaoe for tha Billie Canter, and use prac;:am ..................... ........................ -' The existinq !acility. =u:ior School. was renovated chanqas to the cc=?Uter room, art room, ., 05 music: rcc::zs. waigilt roar:. a.::d ::a:d room ............................... --06 r.,..,c_ .. ,,. t::----a ,.,.=---as There is a ag:aa:e:t ::etween City of Coloracic Sprinqs anci the Scl:lecl District atates "'l'he '::..ty ac.ci the School shall share the cost of the Center on an ec;u:..-::abla l:las:.s.". . . . .............................. --07 Classes will ba o::ereci wllich vil: h.igll school sanio: ci:i:ens in sace classes ..... OS Thera are plans :: senior citi:ens as tutors. mentors. and role cociels fer junior high students school .. -c:asses and recreational Center proc;ra::zs are available to all :e:=ers students lO What was West Junior 3igh is nov a Center. Limited cedi:al assistance, social services assistance, pre-school education, recreational low income family assistance. and senior citizen activities are a.mong ne ser,ices that have been added to the :acility. .................................. ___ ll It is anticipated that establishment of the community centr ill result in more resources available to the school. These increased human resources will help maet the increasinq demands placed upon the by society ..... ----12 Directions: Please answer following questions. In hat ay will =est !:prove tha school' In h4t way ill the adversely the school? ________ 165

PAGE 177

APPENDIX E TABLES 166

PAGE 178

Table 1. Continuum of Survey Responses by Statement School Statement Mean Raw Score Area Improvement Number Most 6 1. 30 69 Facility 9 1. 47 78 Serv Deliv 12 1. 55 82 Serv Deliv 8 1. 60 85 Serv Deliv 10 1. 68 89 Serv Deliv 11 1. 74 92 Serv Deliv 5 1. 89 100 Facility 7 1. 92 102 Finance 2 2.00 106 Admin 1 2.04 108 Admin 4 2.04 108 Admin Least 3 2.96 157 Admin 167

PAGE 179

Table 2. Percentage of Responses by Area n School Improvement Service Delivery 4 1. 26 Most Facility 2 1. 59 Finance 1 1. 92 Administration 4 2.27 Least 168

PAGE 180

Table 3. Response Frequency by Statement Statement Number 1 Admin 2 Admin 3 Admin 4 Admin 5 Facility 6 Facility 7 Finance 8 Serv Delivery 9 Serv Delivery 10 Serv Delivery 11 Serv Delivery 12 Serv Delivery Total Response 1 2 3 10 36 3 8 37 7 7 15 7 8 36 7 20 21 10 43 8 0 21 19 9 29 19 3 34 15 1 25 23 3 28 14 9 28 22 1 261 265 60 41% 42% 9% 169 4 5 3 1 1 0 21 3 2 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 43 7 7% 1%

PAGE 181

Table 4. Site Cohort Analysis Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 At Site n=37 Mean 1. 98 2.05 3.11 2.16 2.03 1. 41 2.15 1. 73 1. 54 1. 78 1. 89 1. 68 170 Not At Site n=16 Mean 2.19 1. 94 2.62 1. 81 1. 56 1. 06 1. 62 1. 33 1.31 1. 44 1. 37 1. 31

PAGE 182

Table 5. Mean Scores by Position/Relationship Group Group Mean Score Rankl Parents (n=4) 1. 48 1 Partners (n=7) 1. 54 2 Administration (n=9) 1. 68 3 Teachers (n=21) 1. 91 4 Educational Support Personnel 2.30 5 (n=9) Unknown (n=3) 1.86 unranked lGeneral results survey rank for school improvement. 171

PAGE 183

Table 6. Codified Frequency of Response for Open Ended Survey Questions Responses: Responses: School Improvement Adverse Effects Administration Facility Service Delivery Finance Other 4 2 30 4 21 172 20 4 8 2 11

PAGE 184

Table 7. OQen-Ended Questions School ImQrovement Analysis "Service Delivery" Service Delivery Reason Number of Responses For School ImQrovement 1. Quicker response to student needs 1 2. Greater services availability 8 3. Integration of generations/use of senior citizens/role modelsl 17 4. Positive publicity 1 5. students' self concept 1 6. Increased community support 1 lBroadly interpreted as additional persons in the building will affect school improvement by mixing generations for role models, awareness, etc. 173

PAGE 185

Table 8. OQen-Ended Questions School ImQrovement Analysis "Other" Other Reason for Number of ResQonses School Improvement 1. Citizen/Community Awareness 8 2. Cooperationl 10 3.Increase in School Capacity 1 4. Ensures Continued Support 1 5. More Resources 1 lCooperation generally applied is cooperation among agencies, parents, and community. 174

PAGE 186

Table 9. Open Ended Questions School Adverse Effects Analysis "Administration" Administration Reason Number of Responses for Adverse Effects on School 1. Principals' duties and responsibilities increased will result in time/management/stress problems! 18 2. Additional mandates possible 1 3. May result in lack of leadership 1 lA general summary statement for this entire group of responses is: the administrative responsibilities with the pa.rtnership has taken needed time away from the school staff justifying the need for an administrat.or to service the Center. 175

PAGE 187

Table 10. Open Ended Questions School Adverse Effects Analysis "Other" Other Reason Number of Responses for Adverse Effects on School 1. Undesirable persons may come to building 1 2. Additional tasks to complete/more responsibilities/ increased time spent on new responsibilitiesl 7 3. Communication cumbersome 1 4. Liability 1 lThese factors were combined because of the relationship between increased responsibilities and time to accomplish them. Many of the comments contained both in the statement. 176

PAGE 188

Table 11. West Junior High/District Achievement Scores: DALT DALT Test of Fall 91 Sp 92 Percent Achievement: Change Subject/Gradel West Junior Reading/7 211 216 +2.3% Reading/8 218 219 +0.4% Math/7 209 219 +4.8% Math/8 225 228 +1. 3% District Reading/7 217 220 +1.4% Reading/8 223 227 +1. 7% Math/7 217 224 +3.2% Math/8 227 232 +2.2% lThe DALT is a measure of student achievement developed by the district and based upon district curriculum. Comparitive data is unavailable due to changes in the raw score scoring base beginning 1992. 177

PAGE 189

Table 12. Services and Programs: Number of Offeringsl Program Type 19923 Percent Average Average Change Social Services 0 24 N/A Recreation 7 31 +442% Education 2 11 +550% Total 9 66 +733% lLimited comparison data was available due to changes in personnel over time period. Time frames were selected to reflect periods with students in attendance. 2Data based upon average of a four month period January-May 1990. Numbers in this column represent West Junior High School before the partnership. 3Data based upon average of a two month period September-October 1992. Numbers in this column represent West Center for Intergenerational Learning, and are considered resultant from the partnership. 178

PAGE 190

Table 13. Adult Usage of Facilityl Average 19923 Percent Aye rage Average Change Number of persons 415 1165 +280% enrolled in Services and Programsl lSee Table 8 for programs and services information. 2Data based upon average of a four month period January-May 1990. This column is reflective of partnership participation. 3oata based upon average of a two month period September-October 1992. .This column is reflective of post-partnership participation. 179

PAGE 191

Table 14. Financial Distribution for Construction Partner Total Dollars Percent Contributed The City of Colorado Springs $467,500 57% PPCAA Grants and Donations $246,000 30% PPCAA Public Funding $ 24,500 3% School District Eleven $ 82,000 10% Total Construction Costs $820,000 100% Note: School District Eleven also contributed the land for the structural addition and completed several renovations to the school which were not added into the sums above. 180

PAGE 192

\ NOTES 1. 1992 Inoyation Award presented by the Center for Education and Information Resources, National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004. 1993 Governor's Award for Excellence in Education presented to Patricia Russell, Principal of West Junior High School, March 1993. 2. The continua, as represented in this paper, are theoretically applied graphic presentations of the concepts of Wise (1981) and Jones and Maloy (1988) These continua were created by the author to establish a connection between these two researchers and to create a theoretical paradigm to conceptually view "interactive partnerships." 3. The total for all construction sponsored by the partnership totaled $820,000 and was shared approximately among partners as described below (see Table 14, Appendix E). 4. In actuality, it was School District 11 which entered into partnership with the City of Colorado Springs; however, West Junior High School often acts 181

PAGE 193

as an independent partner in negotiations, agreements, and other cooperative ventures with the city. 182

PAGE 194

REFERENCES Alreck, P.L., & Settle, R.B. (1985). The survey research handbook. Homewood, IL.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Anderson, W. (1960). Intergovernmental relations in review, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Anton, T.J. (1989). American federalism and public policy: How the system works. New York: Random House. Barton, P.E. (1983). Partnerships between corporations and schools. washington, DC: National Commission for Employment Policy. Bauman, P. (1992). Public education as an enterprise. Manuscript submitted for publication. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Clark, D. M. (1988, August). School/business partnerships are too much talk and not enough performance. American School Board Journal, Qa, 124-126. Coleman, w. G. (1989). State and local government and public private partnerships: A policy issues handbook. New York: Greenwood Press. College Board. (1984). Academic preparation for college: What students need to know and be able to do. New York: Author. Committee for Economic Development. (1986). Investing in our children: Business and the public schools. New York: Author. 183

PAGE 195

Dire, A. (1991, January 27). D-11 group hoping to create a safety net for students. Gazette Telegraph, p. 1. Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown. Doyle, D. (1987, November). Business-led school reform: The second wave. Across the Board, XXIV, 432-456. Dye, T.R. (1990). American federalism: Competition among governments. Lexington, MA.: Lexington Books. Elmore, R.F. (1990): Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco: Josey-:Bass. Fowler, F.J. (1988). Survey resaearch methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Fuhrman, S.H. (1988). State politics and education reform. Politics of Education Association Yearbook 1988. Chicago: Politics of Education Association. Gage, R.W., & Mandell, M.P. (1988). Strategies for managing intergovernmental policies and networks. New York: Praeger Press. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Goodlad, J.I. (1987). Foreward to: c. w. Shelton's The doable dozen: A checklist of practical ideas for school business partnerships. Alexandria, VA: National Community Education Association, p. iii. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1985). Naturalis.tic inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 184

PAGE 196

Guthrie, J.W., Garms, W.I., & Pierce, L.C. (1988). School finance and education policy: Enhancing educational efficiency. equality. and choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. Heaviside, s., & Farris, E. (1989). Educational partnerships in public elementary and secondary schools (Survey Report CS 89-060). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Hersen, M., & Barlow, D.H. (1976). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior. New York: Pergamon. Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-610. Jones, B.L., & Maloy, R.W. (1988). Partnerships for improving schools. New York: Greenwood Press. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. King, R.A., & McGuire, K. (1992). Political and financial support for schools-based and child centered reforms. In J.G. Cibulka, R.J. Reed, and K.K. Wong (Eds.), The politics of urban education in the United States. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press, pp. -147. Krane, D. (1990) Devolution as an intergovernmental strategy. In R.W. Gage & M.P. Mandell (Eds.), Strategies for managing intergovernmental policies and networks. New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 107-126. Lund, L. (1988). Beyond business/education partnerships: The business experience. New York: The Conference Board. Maeroff, G. I. (1983). School and college partnerships in education. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 185

PAGE 197

Mandell, M.P. (1988). Strategies for managing intergovernmental policies and networks. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Mann, D. (1984). It's up to you to steer those school/business partnerships. The American School Board Journal, 12Q, 20-24. Mann, D. (1987, October). Business involvement and public school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, Qa, p. 761. Meranda, D.W. (1989, October). Partners in education: An old tradition renamed. Educational Leadership, 47, p. 4. McGuire, K. (1989). Business involvement in education in the 1990's. In Politics of Education Association Yearbook, 1989. Author. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1983). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. National Commission on Excellence in Education, (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative of educational reform. Washington, DC: u.s. Government Printing Office. National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Author. Nelson, A.C. (1989). Development impact fees: Policy rationale. practice. theory. and issues. Chicago: Planners Press. Odden, A. (1992, February). School finance in the 90's. Phi Delta Kappan, ]l, 455. Otterbourg, s. (1986). School Partnerships Handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Patton, M. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing. 186

PAGE 198

Raywid, M.A. (1990). Rethinking school governance. In R.F. Elmore (Ed.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, p. 265. Russell, P. (1991, February 8). West jr.leading the way. Northern Light (Colorado Springs), p. 2. Sarason, S.B. (1990). The predictable failure of school reform: Can we change course before it's too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Sayer, J., & Williams, V. (1989). Schools and external relations: Managing the new partnerships. London: Cassell Educational Limited. School District 11 & City of Colorado Springs. (February 13, 1991). Joint use and construction agreement, Unpublished Contract. Shapek, R.A. (1981). Managing federalism: Evolution and management of the grant-in-aid system. Charlottesville, VA: Community Collaborators. Sherman, R., & Webb, R. (1988). Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods. New York: The Falmer Press. Shimahara, N. (1988). Anthroethnography: A methodological consideration. In R.R. Sherman and R.B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods. New York: The Falmer Press. Sonquist, J.A., & Dunkelberg, W.C. (1977). Survey and opinion research: Procedures for processing and analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall. Stickel, G.W. (1987). Philosophy of education and partnership in reform. Educational Foundations, .1. Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. (1983). Action for excellence: A comprehensive plan to improve our nation's schools. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. 187

PAGE 199

Timar, T.B., & Kirp, D.L. (1988). Managing educational excellence. New York: The Falmer Press. Timpane, M. (1984, September). Business has rediscovered the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, Q. Wilber, F.P., Lambert, L.M., & Young, M. J. (1988). School-college partnerships: A look at major national models. Reston, VA: NASSP. Wise, R.I. (1981). Schools, businesses, and educational needs: From cooperation to collaboration. Education and Urban Society, 14, 67-82. Yin, R.K. (1989). Case studv research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 188