The importance and potential of community partnerships in urban schools in an era of high-stakes accountability

Abstract

In today’s era of increased accountability and standards-based reforms within the United States educational system, Community Partner Organizations (CPOs) can offer essential support to teachers, schools, and districts. CPOs have the potential to have a positive impact in urban schools in particular, where high-stakes testing and accountability policies are often more demanding and the threat of school closure or turnaround is the everyday reality for teachers who are under enormous pressure to improve student outcomes. Collaborative social relationships between schools and community organizations can facilitate school improvement, combat social and economic barriers, and meet the increasing demands of local, state, and federal accountability policies.

Keywords

Accountability community partnerships school improvement school reform teacher development

Introduction

Collaboration and partnerships between school and community organizations in the United States is not a new concept or lever for school improvement; indeed, such partnerships have been ongoing and examined for decades (Bickel & Hattrup, 1995; Clark, Herter, & Moss, 1998; Hoban, 2002; McCotter, 2001; Sanders, 2006). In this conceptual article, we outline how in the current era of increased accountability and standards-based reforms, Community Partner Organizations (CPOs) can offer vital support in this challenging time when teachers, schools, and districts are struggling to align curricula connected to Common Core State Standards (CCSS), meet the demands of accountability measures, prepare students for high-stakes testing, and ensure students are college-ready. Despite considerable attention and resources, there are few viable solutions to the innumerable difficulties faced by urban districts, outside of individual innovative schools and the occasional charismatic leader, but even these two solutions are often tied together (Schultz & McGinn, 2013). So even though districts and their staff actively work to contribute to students’ educational performance, their overall influence or impact may not be the same for all students (van Hek, Kraaykamp, & Pelzer, 2018). In this article, we synthesize the literature on CPOs alongside that of teaching and learning in the era of accountability and consider the implications for teaching and learning in urban schools.

Within this challenging educational environment, CPOs have the potential to positively impact teacher development and student learning as they provide intellectual, social, and material resources for teachers. This is important in urban schools in particular, where high-stakes testing and accountability policy initiatives are often more demanding and the threat of school closure or turnaround is the everyday reality for teachers who are under enormous pressure to improve student outcomes. Such policies often leave teachers paralyzed as they work with scarce resources to meet the demands of increasing accountability and overcome the many challenges that are often present in urban schools. Within this article, the authors argue that in the current political and educational era of accountability and standards, education CPOs can assist teachers in the development of teacher practice using research-based strategies emphasizing professional development and communities of practice (CoPs) to build teachers’ professional capacity to manage competing demands and improve student academic outcomes in urban schools. Specifically, we outline the importance CPOs in the development of CoPs that ultimately work to strengthen pedagogical outcomes for teachers and youth in urban schooling contexts.

For decades, public schools in the United States have been under attack for dismal academic outcomes and low teacher quality (Ascher & Fruchter, 2001; Heck, 2007; Ingersoll, 2004; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002), resulting in calls for increased accountability (Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Diaz, 2004; Zeichner, 2010). These arguments for rigorous universal academic standards, increased student assessment and standardized tests, and greater accountability based on rewards and consequences have been answered by a dramatic expansion of federal authority over public schools (Anderson, 2005; McDonnell, 2005). It is still unclear how these federal initiatives will reshape educational practices (McDonnell, 2005), but the impact of strict levels of accountability and these external forces permeate every aspect of teaching and learning in American schools today. Even as we realize the downfalls of these policy initiatives and debate their effectiveness, schools are under pressure to meet the ever-changing demands of local, state, and federal policies while also meeting the educational needs of their students (Goertz & Massell, 2005; Mintrop & Sunderman, 2009). While teachers cannot escape the fact that high-stakes testing and school accountability are central to education policy, their main charge remains to educate their students. Yet, in the face of increased accountability demands, teachers are left without the time or resources to fulfill their myriad teaching responsibilities.

While accountability policies may be created in an effort to improve educational outcomes, these policies are often created without considering the professional supports needed for teachers and schools to implement the policies (Cohen & Hill, 2001; Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009; Spillane & Jennings,1997). CPOs can play an important role in filling this gap, providing professional development to support teachers in implementing ongoing accountability demands (Sanders, 2001; Sanders & Lewis, 2005). Educational CPOs can assist teachers in professional development using research-based strategies emphasizing CoPs to improve teacher practice, curricula, and student academic outcomes in urban schools. The concept of CoP is a useful tool to explore how through participation in a CoP, teachers can examine their own teaching problems, realize their teaching beliefs and goals, and take responsibility for their professional development. Furthermore, the use of CPOs to develop CoPs requires a long-term commitment to find useful and meaningful ways to address the inequitable structures that contribute to issues such as the achievement gap within many urban schools (Griner & Stewart, 2013). In the current political and educational environment, CPOs are more important than ever as teachers struggle to meet both the educational and bureaucratic requirements of their job.

As school and community partnerships are examined, it is important to note that the school and/or teacher community is not constrained by geographic boundaries, but can extend to other agencies and organizations that are engaged in activities connected to teaching and learning within the school. The notion of extending the community to include individuals, organizations, and businesses that directly or indirectly influence students is also utilized by Sanders (2006). This understanding is important for urban communities as many lack resources within their immediate vicinity and therefore drawing upon resources from the broader education community is not only beneficial, but necessary (Belfield & Levin, 2007; Murphy & Torre, 2014; Sanders, 2006; Simmons, 2006). Urban schools and communities face myriad stressors that create obstacles for students and additional burdens on teachers as they work to overcome these obstacles and academic deficiencies. Without a doubt, ‘all schools do not start in the same place, and those that are truly disadvantaged have enormous barriers to overcome’ (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Easton, & Luppescu, 2010, p. 25). Undoubtedly, these additional barriers make the development of school community partnerships that much more important in urban schools as community partnerships can work to address the obstacles that teachers and students in urban schools face (Cummins, 1986; Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001). Yet, collaborative social relationships between schools and community organizations have the potential to facilitate school improvement, combat social and economic barriers, and meet the increasing demands of local, state, and federal accountability policies (Bryan, 2005; Taylor & Adelman, 2000).

Teaching and learning in the era of accountability and standards-based education

It is not the aim of the authors to either condemn or praise current education accountability measures, but instead argue that CPOs can be helpful in alleviating the pressures these policies place on schools and teachers. Our aim is to explore how CPOs can support teachers in teaching and learning within the current era of accountability. The reality for teachers today is the daily task of balancing the demands of educational bureaucracy requirements and delivering effective curriculum, instruction, and assessment; we acknowledge that this is not an easy task.

Often touted as the beginning of the era of accountability in education, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, focused on accountability for teachers, principals, and schools, especially in low-achieving schools. With an eye on measurable results, testing became a federal mandate with rewards and consequences based on results (Ravitch, 2010). In theory, teacher accountability systems, like NCLB, can help address the achievement gap between students of different socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, and language backgrounds (Griner & Stewart, 2013; Johnson, 2008; Taubman, 2010). Furthermore, some argue that accountability policies address the gap between students with different educational needs by providing information on the nature of the gap and creating incentives for educators to narrow these differences (National Research Council, 2011). While assessment experts often remind us that test scores should not alone be used to make consequential decisions for schools, teachers, or students and should not be seen as the ultimate measure of student success (Kohn, 2000; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Ullucci & Battey, 2011), 21st-century educational policy has largely focused on rigorous universal academic standards, escalating focus on student assessment, and intensified accountability for schools, teachers, and students.

Today, teachers and administrators have the challenge of educating under accountability and standards-based policies, further complicating administrators’ ability to both evaluate and serve as an instructional leader and teachers’ ability to focus on effective curriculum, instruction, and assessment. An important concern is how testing and accountability have had an impact on teaching and learning in the classroom (Cuban, 2007; Ravitch, 2010), and the unintended consequences of these policies. Unquestionably, these policies have influenced curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices as the pressure to improve student outcomes leads teachers to dedicate instructional time to test preparation (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003; Cuban, 2007). Teachers have reported focusing on increased test preparation, less time on subjects not included on standardized assessments, and activities like assessment coaching to boost scores (Abrams et al., 2003; Linn, 2000). While high-stakes testing may have the potential to be a strong force behind positive change in schools, it is important to acknowledge the impact and unintended consequences these policies have on teaching and learning (McNeil, 2000).

Some may argue that setting high standards and holding teachers accountable is vital for student learning to take place, but accountability policies and standards alone are unlikely to be sufficient to protect the interests of low-performing urban students (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Milner, 2014; Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004). There needs to be further investment in meaningful teacher professional development, intellectual, social, and materials supports, and structured teacher collaboration to increase the capacity of teachers in a variety of ways for the benefit of student learning. If teachers are to meet the demands of educational accountability in an effort to improve student outcomes, it is imperative that supports are in place to alleviate the pressure of bureaucracy so that the focus in schools can be on educational opportunities for all students. In urban schools, where the profound challenge of meeting accountability demands is often stifled by a lack of stability, unprepared teachers, and inadequate resources, these supports are essential.

Urban schools and educational disparities

Urban schools face the formidable challenge of teaching within the context of racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, high concentrations of poverty, high rates of student mobility, and lack of resources (Griner & Stewart, 2013; Kincheloe, 2004; Tran, 2014; van Hek et al., 2018). Understanding these challenges is essential in confronting the daunting task urban teachers face in overcoming the gap between low performance and high expectations for students. To be sure, race, socioeconomics, and teacher quality are all key concerns in thinking about urban schools disparities. These broad social and economic inequities create barriers to teaching and learning and invariably permeate teaching and learning in urban schools.

It is impossible to discuss the context of urban schools without addressing the role that race plays in the stark educational differences of American students. The correlation between race and educational performance is central to the inequality in American education (Farkas, 2008; Lleras, 2008; Orfield & Yun, 1999). Within many urban school districts, minority students are in fact the majority; in some large districts, like Chicago Public Schools, less than 10 percent of students are classified as White (Chicago Public Schools, n.d.), resulting in a high concentration of minority students attending high-poverty urban schools. Teachers ill-prepared to confront this diversity may have trouble adapting their instruction and teaching style to an ethnically diverse group of students (Karssen, van der Veen, & Volman, 2016). Myriad scholars suggest (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Villegas & Irvine, 2010) that educational disparities go beyond race as underlying social structures, culture, educational policy, and lack of opportunities impact educational experiences and outcomes.

It is well established that teacher effectiveness is a strong determinant in student learning outcomes and effective teachers are essential for improving student achievement, especially that of at-risk students (Heck, 2009; Rice, 2003; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011). Yet, in many low-performing schools, teachers do not have the necessary skills to meet the myriad demands they face (Lankford et al., 2002; Sachs, 2004). If effective educators are crucial to academic outcomes and educational opportunity, especially in urban schools, then it is imperative that better supports are in place for those teachers who are entrusted to educate the most vulnerable students. Children living in disadvantaged communities and homes start out behind, and when they become students, they attend schools that are lower in quality, have larger classes, and less experienced teachers (Lankford et al., 2002; Lee & Burkam, 2002). There are often a disproportionate number of inexperienced teachers in urban schools (Goldstein, Keleman, & Koski, 1998; Griner & Stewart, 2013; Lashway, 2004; McRobbie, 1998; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2001) and while students at these schools are in the most need of quality teaching to combat academic deficiencies, they are the least likely to receive it (Jacob, 2007). Low expectations and negative assumptions often lead to differential teaching practices and less rigorous and engaging learning experiences, essentially not providing challenging learning opportunities to all students (Pollack, 2013; van Geel, Visscher, & Teunis, 2017). To further exacerbate the matter, teachers in urban schools often feel overwhelmed and unprepared for the challenges of teaching, contributing to high attrition rates in these schools. With a revolving door of teachers, students at these schools lack stability, the opportunity to build on prior success, and the chance to develop relationships with their teachers.

Even if the teachers are adequately trained at their college or university, these new teachers often face an uphill battle. Teachers are often not adequately prepared for all of the responsibilities that being a classroom teacher includes (Ediger, 2004; Lenz, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). According to Mazzeo and Berman (2003), few colleges and universities prepare teachers to work in low-performing urban schools where new teachers are more likely to be assigned to teach. In addition, low-performing schools by and large have the least qualified teachers (Cibulka, 2003) and have more teachers teaching out of their subject area or out of the grade level that they were prepared to teach (Lashway, 2004; Mac Iver, Ruby, Balfanz, & Byrnes, 2003).

When low-performing urban schools are able to hire highly effective teachers, they often do not stay (Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006). High turnover rates and an influx of new teachers are common in low-performing schools. In Chicago, about 40 percent of new teachers leave teaching within 5 years (Payne, 2008) and in New York City, 44 percent of new teachers are gone within only 4 years (Winerip, 2005). Borman (2000) found turnover rates as high as 80 percent in some schools. Perhaps due to the high stress of teaching in urban schools, high teacher turnover is often a big problem (Corallo & McDonald, 2001; Watts, 2000). Even those that remain, once confronted with the day-to-day challenges of teaching and classroom management, often abandon the more progressive practices they learned in their teacher-training programs (Pollack, 2013). Consequently, it can be difficult to attract quality teachers, and can be even more difficult to keep them.

Understanding the pervading factors that impact minority students’ academic achievement in urban schools is a fundamental first step as schools and communities collaborate to combat inequities, deficit thinking, and school policies and practices that deter minority students from succeeding. Nearly every large urban city has an abundance of persistently low-performing schools (Borman, 2000; Forster, 1997) and in large cities like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Houston students are persistently failing to meet state or federal standards. It is in these urban areas where high concentrations of minority and poor students attend schools, resulting in failing schools serving an unequal amount of minority students (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Urban schools are more likely to have a high concentration of minority students living in poverty (Borman, 2000; Forster, 1997; Hassel & Steiner, 2003; Lashway, 2004). This state of poverty often leads to students in these communities coming to school less prepared to learn. In addition, family economic status was also associated with a higher quality home environment and effective parenting practices, both having a positive association with academic achievement (Dixon-Román, 2013). Compounded, these factors have resulted in efforts at improving these schools that have largely been unsuccessful. So, while it is necessary to understand the context of urban schools, for the purposes of this article, it is even more important to understand the influence additional supports can have on student achievement, and why community partnerships have the potential to become a lever for change within these schools.

Improving urban schools with CPOs

The collaboration between school and external partners to improve teaching and learning in schools has been studied for over a decade (Bickel & Hattrup, 1995; Clark et al., 1998; Hoban, 2002; McCotter, 2001; M. G. Sanders, 2006). Relationships between teachers and other educational professionals found in CPOs help to increase the opportunity for communication and collaboration in the development of learning and teaching practices (Gravani & John, 2005; M. G. Sanders, 2006; Sconzert, Smylie, & Wenzel, 2004). As a result, in urban communities, schools can benefit from the relationships with CPOs because they bring additional education and academic experience, provide an opportunity to build capacity, and offer a collaborative approach to improvement. However, very little research examines specifically how professional communities supply intellectual, social, and material resources for teacher learning and innovations in practice (Little, 2002). Furthermore, while there is research on working with external partners for school reform (F. M. Newmann & Sconzert, 2000; Sconzert et al., 2004), there is still more to learn about development and use of these semi-permanent relationships for the purposes of teacher development and capacity building to maintain the fidelity of school reforms.

When schools develop relationships with CPOs they often do so because of the expertise that these organizations can bring to school administration, teacher instructional practices, and student learning (Gravani, 2008; M. G. Sanders, 2006). Research suggests that professional development taking place internally often has difficulty changing teachers’ beliefs and practices (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Strickland, 2002). This is due in large part to the inability of in-service training courses to teach practitioners techniques for dealing with particular practical problems (D. Hargreaves, 1996). Most teachers will ultimately assess a program or partnership based on whether it met their instructional or practical needs (Gravani, 2008). This provides an opportunity for community partners to intercede and offer schools additional support.

An important factor that highlights the need for bringing in partner organizations is their ability to help urban schools develop and expand their capacity to do their work. Based on organizational theory (Bolman & Deal, 1991; Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, & Allen, 2001; Hatch, 2018; de Jong, 1996), this capacity includes the technical capabilities and infrastructure needed to create outcomes, the necessary staff and accompanying skills to attain outcomes and goals, and the fiscal flexibility and availability to finance desired outcomes and strategies. Research further suggests that urban schools need additional capacity to successfully educate all students and the resources to provide this additional support are often available in their community (Epstein, 2005; Sanders, 2006; Waddock, 1995). This includes developing skills around the social, emotional, and ethnoracial differences to ensure that teachers are not exacerbating the tensions that may exist among students (Nunn, 2011). Through the development of relationships with CPOs, schools build an expanded CoP or knowledge-building community.

Hoadley and Kilner (2005) identify this concept of community as a knowledge-building community. In their research, they use technology to diversify an online learning community to expand collective knowledge. A similar concept can be applied to urban schools. Schools are now easily accessible by several modes of transportation and through digital resources, making an expanded education community quite practical (Sanders, 2006). From lesson plan sharing, to professional development, to watching a video tour of the Louvre, expanding a school’s community to include other education professionals is an achievable goal for urban schools. As urban teachers become more aware of the resources in their broader community, they begin collaborating with these entities and inherently improving the equity of educational opportunities offered to the students they serve.

The expanded community allows schools to benefit from a variety of partners, providing opportunities for increased collaboration; however, it is important that schools are strategic in the relationships they develop to ensure that they are of benefit to the school. School administrators seek community organizations that can positively contribute to the school culture, increase the capacity for educators to improve their practice, and aid in student growth and success (Auerbach, 2007; Schultz & McGinn, 2013; Warren, Hong, Rubin, & Uy, 2009). Sanders (2006, 2014) outlines key practices for administrators to ensure that they are working to promote the development of community partnerships:

Maintain a school environment where teachers and parents are focused on student success;

Model for faculty and staff an openness to community involvement and establish an expectation for partnerships;

Network with individuals in the community to inform them of the school’s goals and needs;

Play an active and supportive role in partnerships;

Assist staff in developing leadership for family and community involvement.

The critical challenge confronting community partners is the intersection of theory and practice, consequently, relegating some support to just theoretical or anecdotal knowledge as opposed to practical knowledge favored by teachers (Epstein, Salinas, & Van Voorhis, 2001; Knight, 2002; Pollack, 2013; Sheldon, 2003). Yet, when schools dedicate time and resources to developing community partnerships that are rooted in research and paired with the expertise of educators, partnerships are able to cultivate positive results.

However, it is not enough to simply partner with community organizations. Urban schools and community partners should form relationships designed to develop the capacity and collaboration of teachers, while increasing the likelihood that the practices and systems put in place to increase student achievement will have fidelity. Epstein and Sheldon (2006) have argued that the ongoing planning includes assessment of program implementation and interim outcomes as well as ultimate measures of student success. Likewise, Nettles (1991) has noted that not all community-school partnerships have realized their goals for increased student achievement, likely due to lack of coordination and successfully identifying issues to address. Effective community-school partnerships need to be a well-coordinated effort throughout the school and community, especially in urban areas where school communities have scarce resources to address additional challenges. Furthermore, when CPOs focus their goals toward aligning to schools’ goals, partnerships can have a positive impact on student learning and development (Epstein, 2001; Sheldon, 2003). This alignment requires collaboration on the part of schools and CPOs. When time is invested in alignment, community partnerships can help schools reach academic outcomes and begin establishing CoPs.

Moving from community partners to CoPs

In recent years, educational scholars, policymakers, and school districts have increasingly emphasized improving teacher professional development as a cornerstone of education reform (Fullan, 2000; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). Changes in classroom practices, and ultimately student academic outcomes, rely on teachers (Fullan & Miles, 1992; Spillane, 1999), and research tells us that changes in teaching practice are not easy to carry out without an investment in teacher professional development and ongoing learning (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Tyack and Cuban (1995) note that ‘change where it counts most – in the daily interactions of teachers and students – is the hardest to achieve and the most important’ (p. 30). To be sure, if teachers and students do not find meaning in school reform, it does not have a chance of successfully changing the school organization. Evans (1996) reminds us that while ‘reform may promise many improvements . . . it always causes uncertainty and confusion’ (p. 66). Furthermore, we know effective teachers can be fostered by continuing professional development (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). This investment in professional development creates skillful teachers who can significantly increase student achievement (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002), and can provide quality instruction, positively impacting student success (Taylor & Pearson, 2005). Yet, we assert that investing in professional development alone does not do enough. There should also be an effort to craft knowledge-building relationships built on the common goal of improving teacher practice for the benefit of student learning; in other words, CoPs are central to teaching and learning (Cambridge, 2001; Fuller, Hodkinson, Hodkinson, & Unwin, 2005).

The theory of a CoP has become a useful tool in conceptualizing knowing and learning. CoPs are groups of people who come together by way of mutual engagement through an agreed-upon set of relations. Members of the CoP share a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2011). The process of social learning happens when people have a common interest over an extended period of time and gather to share ideas and strategies and solve common problems. Moreover, it provides an opportunity for teachers to engage in collective learning with a group of people who share a common concern.

When developing CoPs, Wenger (2009) identifies three important factors: domain, community, and practice. CoPs must have an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. Membership therefore implies a commitment to the domain, and consequently a shared competence that distinguishes members from other people. A CoP must also develop community, that is, in pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other. Finally, members of a CoP are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems – in short, a shared practice. This takes time and sustained interaction. In order for partner organizations to effectively work with teachers in their community, they must adapt and embrace each factor, develop relationships that build community, and work to support their practice by providing an array of resources. Initially, these organizations begin with peripheral participation but eventually become part of the CoP and gradually take up its practices. So while initially partners may participate in tangential ways, over time they take up more of the identity of group, and more of the central practices of the group (Hoadley, 2012). The development of their relationship is vital to working collaboratively. Moreover, these efforts toward shared or distributed leadership can also be seen as a form of synchronous leadership, in which stakeholders work, in different but compatible means, toward shared goals (Andrews & Lewis, 2004).

A collaborative professional community where teachers share information and reflect on their practice is essential to classroom success (Adler, 2006; Lieberman & Miller, 2008; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Pierson & Howell, 2013). Moreover, Fullan (2007) suggests that education reform can only be successful if teachers are invested in the success of other teachers and the whole school, not just their own classrooms. A. Hargreaves (2009) further suggests that teachers will only really learn when they connect with other teachers. While professional development is important to improving practice, in some ways it may still isolate teachers in the work to improve (Scribner, 1999). The teaching profession can often be viewed as individualistic, often placing decision-making in isolation and not in collaboration with peers. However, when collaboration does take place, it is too often limited to anecdotes or casual conversations (A. Hargreaves & Daw, 1990; Lortie, 1975). Consequently, collaborating in a learning community is of absolute importance and remains an emphasis in the cultivation of teacher researchers and a promising practice in the area of teacher development (Clark, 2001; Snow-Gerono, 2005). The transition from working individually to working in collaboration takes time and practice to implement and perfect. However, the benefit of shared experience over time and the development of a commitment to shared understanding can have a profound impact on teachers and teaching. The quality of the relationships among adults in a school is important to school outcomes (Bryk et al., 2010) and meaningful participation, collegiality, and community learning have the potential to improve a school (Evans, 1996; Fullan, 2007). When teachers develop a professional learning community or CoP, it not only enhances their own learning base, but also has a positive impact on their classroom practice (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Seo, 2009).

Being an active participant and creating a shared identity as a community through engaging in, collaborating with, and contributing to the CoP is key to teachers’ social participation and learning. Zeichner and Liston (1996) suggest that through participation in a CoP, teachers can examine their own teaching problems, realize their teaching beliefs and goals, and take responsibility for their professional development through participation in the CoP. As a result, all members in an effective CoP must be highly regarded and encouraged to participate in information sharing, problem solving, and developing an identity as a community (Smith, 2003). This in turn aids in the sharing and retention of knowledge and acts of a means of developing long-term organizational knowledge and implementing shared instructional practices with fidelity. When CoPs are nurtured and intentionally cultivated, teachers are able to develop shared learning and collective knowledge within their CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

As urban schools continue to work in partnership with community entities, they can work to counteract the realities of being under-resourced, working with a student population with high mobility, and managing high turnover in teaching staff and/or school leadership by successfully harnessing the power of CoPs, which develop capacity for improvement. Consequently, when urban schools expand partnerships that contribute to the achievement of their students, these relationships can develop into CoPs and these broad communities can in turn lead to higher teacher morale, better relationships between teacher and administrators, and higher student achievement (Bartholomew & Sandholtz, 2009; Brion-Meisels, 2015; Knight, 2002). Moreover, these CoPs can lead to more effective communication on student success and instruction, thereby leading to increased student success (Wenger, 2009). So while initially partners may participate in tangential ways, over time they take up more of the identity of the group, and more of the central practices of the group (Hoadley, 2012). Development of their relationship is vital to working collaboratively.

Conclusion

While the concept of CPOs is far from neoteric, in this article we argue that in the current educational environment of standardized assessments and accountability, developing relationships with community organizations is more important than ever before, especially in urban schools. Urban schools are under enormous pressure from accountability policies to get better, but often lack the capacity to improve on their own. In fact, these policies often further disadvantage already disadvantaged schools, teachers, and students. Urban schools already face additional stressors and obstacles to overcome, including but not limited to, the pressure of bureaucratic paperwork, test preparation, and even the threats of turnaround or closure. These and other compounding factors weigh heavily on teachers in addition to the challenge of teaching in an urban school. Developing strategic, long-term partnerships and engaging the community beyond the school walls can alleviate pressure on administrators while at the same time promote and support teacher development and instructional practices. Undoubtedly, collaborative social relationships between schools and community organizations have the potential to facilitate school improvement, combat social and economic barriers, and meet the increasing demands of local, state, and federal accountability policies (Chenoweth, 2009; Epstein, 2001; Sheldon, 2003; Sheldon, 2007; Simmons, 2006).

Accountability policies hold all teachers and schools to the same evaluation policies, and all students to the same set of learning standards, yet there are no supports in place to ensure that all schools, teachers, and students have the opportunity to meet these standards and policies (Goertz & Massell, 2005; Mintrop & Sunderman, 2009). Many schools struggle to deliver high-quality teaching and learning as they struggle with the growing demands of accountability policies. In response to the demands imposed by accountability policies, schools can partner with CPOs and principals and teachers can take advantage of the resources embedded in CPOs in an effort to combat increasing bureaucratic demands. While teachers cannot escape the fact that high-stakes testing and school accountability are central to education policy, schools can partner with CPOs to draw upon the social, academic, and professional resources they offer.

Building community partnerships can offer urban schools much needed relief; however, it is not always a seamless process and school leaders should consider the inherent challenges that come with school-community partnerships. Financial constraints will likely impede community partnership development as schools and organizations seek funding to support this important work. In addition, there is the challenge of ensuring that the services provided by CPOs positively influence student development, which stems from the belief that they can begin to develop a sense of agency in the work (Brion-Meisels, 2015). Subsequently, building trust is key in these partnerships and trust-building takes time. Dryfoos (2003) reminds us that collaboration is hard work and that it requires extensive ‘time, meetings, patience, and understanding. Schools and community agencies have to learn each other’s language, mores, concepts, and prejudices’ (p. 205). Despite these challenges, partnerships with CPOs have the potential to support growth of student achievement, the improvement of school culture, and the support of improvement in instructional practices. One suggestion for schools is to assign an intermediary who works in partnership with to create a consistent person for stakeholders to be able to consistently communicate with the school (Tran, 2014).

While the impact of CPOs on teachers’ instructional practices and student achievement in this era of accountability is uncertain, exploring current partnerships through research, examining outcomes, and developing additional CPOs can help us to learn how CPOs can be the most effective in promoting teacher development and student learning. Community partnerships are not the magical solution to overcome mounting teacher responsibilities in the face of growing federal educational policies and accountability; nor can they alleviate these pressures alone. However, when approached with thoughtfulness to develop CoPs, CPOs can contribute to professional development, increased student learning, quality curricula, and improved teacher instructional practices.

References

Abrams

L. M.

Pedulla

J. J.

Madaus

G. F.

(2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers’ opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42, 18–29.

Adler

P. S.

(2006). Towards collaborative community. In Alder

P. S.

Heckscher

(Eds.), The firm as a collaborative community: Reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy (pp. 11–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson

L. W.

(2005). The No Child Left Behind act and the legacy of federal aid to education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 24.

Andrews

Lewis

(2004). Building sustainable futures: Emerging understandings of the significant contribution of the professional learning community. Improving Schools, 7, 129–150.

Ascher

Fruchter

(2001). Teacher quality and student performance in New York City’s low-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6, 199–214.

Auerbach

(2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates reconceptualizing parent roles in education through the experience of working-class families of Color. Urban Education, 42, 250–283.

Ball

Cohen

(1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice-based theory of professional education. In Darling-Hammond

Sykes

(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook on policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bartholomew

S. S.

Sandholtz

J. H.

(2009). Competing views of teaching in a school–university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 155–165.

Belfield

Levin

(2007). The price we pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

10.

Bickel

Hattrup

(1995). Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Reflections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 35–62.

11.

Bolman

L. G.

Deal

T. E.

(1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30, 509–534.

12.

Borman

G. D.

(2000). Title I: The evolving research base. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5, 27–45.

13.

Brion-Meisels

(2015). Can I trust you with this? Investigating middle school students’ use of learning supports. Urban Education, 50, 718–749.

14.

Bryan

(2005). Fostering educational resilience and achievement in urban schools through school-family community partnerships. Partnerships/Community, 22, 219–227.

15.

Bryk

A. S.

Sebring

P. B.

Allensworth

Easton

J. Q.

Luppescu

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

16.

Cambridge

B. L.

(2001). Fostering the scholarship of teaching and learning: Communities of practice. To Improve the Academy, 19, 3–16.

17.

Chenoweth

(2009). How it’s being done: Urgent lessons from unexpected schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

18.

Chicago Public Schools. (n.d.). School scorecard. Retrieved from http://www.cps.edu/schools

19.

Cibulka

J. G.

(2003). Educational bankruptcy, takeovers, and reconstitution of failing schools. In Boyd

W. L.

Miretzky

(Eds.), American educational governance on trial: Change and challenges (pp. 249–270). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.

20.

Clark

Herter

Moss

(1998). Continuing the dialogue on collaboration. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 785–791.

21.

Clark

C. M.

(2001). Talking shop: Authentic conversation and teacher learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

22.

Clotfelter

C. T.

Ladd

H. F.

Vigdor

J. L.

Diaz

R. A.

(2004). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low-performing schools to attract and retain high quality teachers? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23, 251–271.

23.

Cochran-Smith

Lytle

(2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research in the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

24.

Cohen

D. K.

Hill

H. C.

(2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

25.

Cohen

McCabe

E. M.

Michelli

N. M.

Pickeral

(2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.

26.

Corallo

McDonald

(2001). What works with low performing schools: A review of research literature on low performing schools. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.

27.

Cuban

(2007). Hugging the middle. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15, 1.

28.

Cummins

(1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18–37.

29.

Darling-Hammond

(2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘no child left behind’. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10, 245–260.

30.

Darling-Hammond

(2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 35–47.

31.

Darling-Hammond

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597–604.

32.

Darling-Hammond

Youngs

(2002). Defining ‘highly qualified teachers’: What does ‘scientifically-based research’ actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31, 13–25.

33.

Dixon-Román

E. J.

(2013). The forms of capital and the developed achievement of black males. Urban Education, 48, 828–862.

34.

Dryfoos

J. G.

(2003). A community school in action. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 11, 203–205.

35.

DuFour

Eaker

(1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

36.

Ediger

(2004). What makes for failing schools? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 2, 85–87.

37.

Epstein

J. L.

(2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

38.

Epstein

J. L.

(2005). Links in a professional development chain: Preservice and inservice education for effective programs of school, family, and community partnerships. The New Educator, 1, 125–141.

39.

Epstein

J. L.

Salinas

K. C.

Van Voorhis

F. L.

(2001). Teachers involve parents in schoolwork (TIPS) manuals and prototype activities for the elementary and middle grades. Baltimore, MD: Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University.

40.

Epstein

J. L.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships. SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry, 117–138.

41.

Evans

(1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Farkas

(2008). How educational inequality develops. In Harris

D. R.

Lin

(Eds.), The colors of poverty: Why racial and ethnic disparities persist (pp. 105–134). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

43.

Forster

E. M.

(1997, April). State intervention in local school districts: Educational solution or political process? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

44.

Foster-Fishman

P. G.

Berkowitz

S. L.

Lounsbury

D. W.

Jacobson

Allen

N. A.

(2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 241–261.

45.

Fullan

(2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 5–27.

46.

Fullan

(2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). London, England: Cassell.

47.

Fullan

Miles

(1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 744–752.

48.

Fuller

Hodkinson

Unwin

(2005). Learning as peripheral participation in communities of practice: A reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31, 49–68.

49.

Goddard

R. D.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

W. K.

(2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 3–17.

50.

Goertz

M. E.

Massell

(2005). Holding high hopes: How high schools respond to state accountability policies (Consortium for Policy Research in Education Policy Brief), January. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/29/

51.

Goldstein

Kelemen

Koski

W. S.

(1998). Reconstitution in theory and practice: The experience of San Francisco. Retrieved from http://103.5.180.193/kip/Record/uum.b16613673

52.

Gravani

(2008). Academics and practitioners: Partners in generating knowledge or citizens of two different worlds? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,649–659.

53.

Gravani

M. N.

John

P. D.

(2005). ‘Them and us’: Teachers’ and tutors’ perceptions of a ‘new’ professional development course in Greece. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 35, 303–319.

54.

Griner

A. C.

Stewart

M. L.

(2013). Addressing the achievement gap and disproportionality through the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. Urban Education, 48, 585–621.

55.

Guarino

C. M.

Santibanez

Daley

G. A.

(2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173–208.

56.

Hargreaves

(2009). A decade of educational change and a defining moment of opportunity: An introduction. Journal of Educational Change, 19, 89–100.

57.

Hargreaves

Daw

(1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived congeniality, collaborative, culture and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 227–241.

58.

Hargreaves

(1996). Teaching as a research-based profession. London, England: Teacher Training Agency.

59.

Hassel

B. C.

Steiner

(2003). Starting fresh: A new strategy for responding to chronically low performing schools. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact.

60.

Hatch

M. J.

(2018). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

61.

Heck

R. H.

(2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an organizational property of schools and students’ achievement and growth rates. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 399–432.

62.

Heck

R. H.

(2009). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a multilevel cross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 227–249. doi:10.1108/09578230910941066

63.

Hoadley

(2012). What is a community of practice and how Can we support it? Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, 286.

64.

Hoadley

C. M.

Kilner

P. G.

(2005). Using technology to transform communities of practice into knowledge-building communities. ACM SIG Group Bulletin, 25, 31–40.

65.

Hoban

(2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

66.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2004). Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their classrooms with qualified teachers? Renewing our schools, securing our future – A national task force on public education; joint initiative of the center for American progress and the institute for America’s future. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/493

67.

Jacob

B. A.

(2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of Children, 17, 129–153.

68.

Johnson

E. S.

(2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model of accountability in education. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 5(1). Retrieved from https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/complicity/index.php/complicity/article/view/8777

69.

Jong

T. D.

(1996). The educational psychologist and school organization development in the reconstruction of education in South Africa: Issues and challenges. South African Journal of Psychology, 26, 114–119.

70.

Karssen

van der Veen

Volman

(2016). Ethnic diversity in schools and bi-ethnic Dutch students’ educational outcomes and social functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27, 613–628.

71.

Kincheloe

J. L.

(2004). Multiple intelligences reconsidered. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

72.

Knight

(2002). A systemic approach to professional development: Learning as practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 229–241.

73.

Kohn

(2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

74.

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37–62.

75.

Lashway

(2004). The mandate: To help low performing schools. Teacher Librarian, 31, 25–27.

76.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

77.

Lee

V. E.

Burkam

D. T.

(2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Economic Policy Institute, 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036.

78.

Lenz

(2002). Been there, done that, Mr. President. Journal of Staff Development, 23, 84.

79.

Lieberman

Miller

(2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

80.

Linn

R. L.

(2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–16.

81.

Little

J. W.

(2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917–946.

82.

Lleras

(2008). Race, racial concentration, and the dynamics of educational inequality across urban and suburban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 886–912.

83.

Lortie

(1975). School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

84.

Mac Iver

D. D.

Ruby

Balfanz

Byrnes

. (2003). Removed from the list: A comparative longitudinal case study of a reconstitution-eligible school. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18, 259–289.

85.

Mazzeo

Berman

(2003). Reaching new heights: Turning around low performing schools. Washington, DC: National Governors Association for Best Practices.

86.

McCotter

(2001). Collaborative groups as professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 685–704.

87.

McDonnell

L. M.

(2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education: Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 19–38.

88.

McLaughlin

Talbert

(2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

89.

McNeil

L. M.

(2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge Press.

90.

McRobbie

(1998). Can state intervention spur academic turnaround? State Intervention. Retrieved from https://www.wested.org/online_pubs/state_intervention/SI.html

91.

Milner

R. H.

IV . (2014). Scripted and narrowed curriculum reform in urban schools. Urban Education, 49, 743–749.

92.

Mintrop

Sunderman

G. L.

(2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement – And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353–364.

93.

Mintrop

Trujillo

(2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 481–430.

94.

Murphy

Torre

(2014). Creating productive cultures in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

95.

National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

96.

Nettles

S. M.

(1991). Community contributions to school outcomes of African-American students. Education and Urban Society, 24, 132–147.

97.

Newmann

F. M.

Sconzert

(2000). School improvement with external partners. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/school-improvement-external-partners

98.

Nichols

S. L.

Berliner

D. C.

(2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

99.

Nunn

L. M.

(2011). Classrooms as racialized spaces: Dynamics of collaboration, tension, and student attitudes in urban and suburban high schools. Urban Education, 46, 1226–1255.

100.

Orfield

Losen

Wald

Swanson

C. B.

(2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Retrieved from https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-dropouts/losing-our-future-how-minority-youth-are-being-left-behind-by-the-graduation-rate-crisis/orfield-losing-our-future-2004.pdf

101.

Orfield

Yun

J. T.

(1999). Resegregation in American Schools (A Special Report from the Harvard Project on School Desegregation). Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

102.

Payne

C. M.

(2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

103.

Pierson

E. R.

Howell

E. J.

(2013). Two high schools and the road to full inclusion: A comparison study. Improving Schools, 16, 223–231.

104.

Pollack

T. M.

(2013). Unpacking everyday ‘teacher talk’ about students and families of color: Implications for teacher and school leader development. Urban Education, 48, 863–894.

105.

Putnam

Borko

(2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4–15.

106.

Ravitch

(Ed.). (2010). Debating the future of American education: Do we meet national standards and assessments? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

107.

Rice

J. K.

(2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

108.

Sachs

S. K.

(2004). Evaluation of teacher attributes as predictors of success in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 177–187.

109.

Sanders

M. G.

(2001). A study of the role of ‘community’ in comprehensive school, family and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 19–34.

110.

Sanders

M. G.

(2006). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

111.

Sanders

M. G.

(2014). Principal leadership for school, family, and community partnerships: The role of a systems approach to reform implementation. American Journal of Education, 120, 233–255.

112.

Sanders

M. G.

Lewis

K. C.

(2005). Building bridges toward excellence: Community involvement in high schools. The High School Journal, 88, 1–9.

113.

Sanders

W. L.

Rivers

J. C.

(1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement.

114.

Schultz

McGinn

K. C.

(2013). ‘No one cares about this community more than us’: The role of listening, participation, and trust in a small urban district. Urban Education, 48, 767–797.

115.

Sconzert

Smylie

M. A.

Wenzel

S. A.

(2004). Working for school improvement: Reflections of Chicago’s Annenberg external partners. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/p71.pdf

116.

Scribner

J. P.

(1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 238–266.

117.

Seo

(2009). Teacher learning communities and professional development. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26, 243–276.

118.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2003). Linking school–family–community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. The Urban Review, 35, 149–165.

119.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community partnerships. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 267–275.

120.

Simmons

(2006). Breaking through: Transforming urban school districts. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

121.

Smith

M. K.

(2003). Communities of practice. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm

122.

Snow-Gerono

J. L.

(2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 241–256.

123.

Spillane

J. P.

(1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 143–175.

124.

Spillane

J. P.

Jennings

N. E.

(1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449–481.

125.

Strickland

(2002). Improving reading achievement through professional development (Successful reading instruction). Boston, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

126.

Stronge

J. H.

Ward

T. J.

Grant

L. W.

(2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339–355.

127.

Taubman

P. M.

(2010). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. London, England: Routledge.

128.

Taylor

B. M.

Pearson

P. D.

(Eds.). (2005). Teaching reading: Effective schools, accomplished teachers. London, England: Routledge.

129.

Taylor

Adelman

H. S.

(2000). Connecting schools, families, and communities. Professional School Counseling, 3, 298–307.

130.

Tran

(2014). Addressing reciprocity between families and schools: Why these bridges are instrumental for students’ academic success. Improving Schools, 17, 18–29.

131.

Tyack

Cuban

(1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

132.

Ullucci

Battey

(2011). Exposing color blindness/grounding color consciousness: Challenges for teacher education. Urban Education, 46, 1195–1225.

133.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). School improvement report: Executive order on actions for turning around low performing schools. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

134.

van Geel

Visscher

A. J.

Teunis

. (2017). School characteristics influencing the implementation of a data-based decision making intervention. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28, 443–462.

135.

van Hek

Kraaykamp

Pelzer

. (2018). Do schools affect girls’ and boys’ reading performance differently? A multilevel study on the gendered effects of school resources and school practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29, 1–21.

136.

Villegas

A. M.

Irvine

J. J.

(2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments. The Urban Review, 42(3), 175–192.

137.

Waddock

S. A.

(1995). Not by schools alone: Sharing responsibility for America’s education reform. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

138.

Warren

M. R.

Hong

Rubin

C. L.

P. S.

(2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111, 2209–2254.

139.

Watts

(2000). Getting results with accountability: Rating schools, assisting schools, improving schools (Report). Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

140.

Wenger

(2009). Communities of practice. Communities, 22, 176–188.

141.

Wenger

(2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

142.

Winerip

(2005, March). Looking at improvement, not miracles. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/education/looking-at-improvement-not-miracles.html

143.

Zeichner

(2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1544–1552.

144.

Zeichner

K. M.

Liston

D. P.

(1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction (Reflective teaching and the social conditions of schooling). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.