Zoned for Change: A Historical Case Study of the Belmont Zone of Choice

Abstract

Background/Context

Over the past two decades, scholars have increasingly called for educational leaders to collaborate with community-based organizations in their efforts to bring about school reform. Observing that school reform efforts often fail to include those most impacted by failing policies and practices, these scholars have turned their attention to the role of community organizations that advocate on behalf of parents and students in under-served communities. These scholars have explored the potential of community organizing strategies for transforming public schools, documenting the crucial role of strategic alliances between community-based organizations and school district officials in bringing about greater equity and improved student outcomes.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

The purpose of this study is to explore how educational leaders and community-based organizations collaborated to bring about unprecedented education reform in the nation's second largest school district.

Research Design

This historical case study is based on in-depth interviews with 11 high-profile school district, union, community, and other educational leaders across seven key partner institutions and organizations that were involved in the development of the Belmont Zone of Choice from 2001 to 2009.

Conclusions/Recommendations

This study reveals the kinds of obstacles facing reformers in large urban school districts, and it illustrates how concerned educators, community-based organizations, and educational reformers can form strategic alliances to fight for meaningful change in underserved communities. Rather than provide a simplistic or idealistic depiction of collaboration, however, this case study illustrates the tensions and struggles that emerged as diverse—and sometimes antagonistic—social actors collaborated to bring about education reform at the local level. It also illustrates that strategic alliances are not necessarily sufficient to ensure successful reform implementation within contexts of political and economic asymmetry. As such, the history of the Belmont Zone of Choice highlights both the promise and challenge of community organizing for school reform.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ancess

(2003). Beating the odds: High schools as communities of commitment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Anyon

(2009). Progressive social movements and educational equity. Educational Policy, 23(1), 194–215.

Berends

, Springer

M. G.

, Ballou

, & Walberg

H. J.

(Eds.). (2009). Handbook of research on school choice. New York: Routledge.

Conchas

G. Q.

, & Rodríguez

L. F.

(2008). Small schools and urban youth: Using the power of school culture to engage students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Darling-Hammond

, Ancess

, & Ort

S. W.

(2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the coalition campus schools project. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 639–673.

Davies

, & Hentschke

G. C.

(1994). School autonomy: Myth or reality—developing an analytical taxonomy. Educational Management Administration Leadership, 22, 96–103.

Fullan

, & Watson

(2000). School-based management: Reconceptualizing to improve learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 453–473.

Goldhaber

D. D.

, & Eide

E. R.

(2002). What do we know (and need to know) about the impact of school choice reforms on disadvantaged students? Harvard Educational Review, 72, 157–176.

Hansen

J. S.

, & Roza

(2005). Decentralized decision-making for schools: New promises for an old idea? Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

10.

Honig

M. I.

(2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of new small autonomous schools initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 387–422.

11.

Kozol

(1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Harper Collins.

12.

Levin

H. M.

, & Belfield

C. R.

(2003). The marketplace in education. Review of Research in Education, 27, 183–219.

13.

Lipman

(2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

14.

Marlow

M. L.

(2000). Spending, school structure, and public education quality: Evidence from California. Economics of Education Review, 19, 89–106.

15.

Mediratta

, Shah

, & McAlister

(2009). Community organizing for stronger schools: Strategies and successes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

16.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Noguera

(2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York: Teachers College Press.

18.

Oakes

, & Rogers

(2006). Learning power: Organizing for educational justice. New York: Teachers College Press.

19.

Oakes

, Valladares

, Reneé

, Fanelli

, Medina

, & Rogers

(2007). California educational opportunity reports 2007. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access.

20.

Raywid

M. A.

, Schmerler

, Phillips

S. E.

, & Smith

G. A.

(2003). Not so easy going: The policy environments of small urban schools and schools-within-schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

21.

Rogers

, & Terriquez

(2009). “More justice”: The role of organized labor in educational reform. Educational Policy, 23, 216–241.

22.

Shirley

(1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin: University of Texas Press.

23.

Tung

, Ouimette

, & Rugen

(2006). Progress and promise: Results from the Boston Pilot schools. Boston: Center for Collaborative Education.

24.

UCLA/CARECEN Research Collaborative. (2009). A community zoned for change: Lessons from the first three years of the Belmont Zone of Choice. Los Angeles: UCLA Center X.

25.

Warren

M. R.

(2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Education Review, 75, 133–173.

26.

Zanzig

B. R.

(1997). Measuring the impact of competition in local government education markets on the cognitive achievement of students. Economics of Education Review, 16, 431–441.