Annotated Bibliography

Glickman, N. J., & Scally, C. P. (2008). Can Community And Education Organizing Improve Inner-city Schools? Journal of Urban Affairs, 30(5), 557-577.
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.montclair.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=35324255&site=ehost-live

This study looked at the benefits and shortcomings of community education organizing, how the symbiotic relationship of community and school can be bootstrapped into sustained improvement in both spheres. The process used to build community in school environments is divided into 3 main parts. 1) Building a community’s social capital to develop leaders and increase political power, 2) Demanding public accountability and improving community and school connections to develop a sense of joint responsibility to the school’s success, 3) Developing the community capacity for solving problems collectively. This part requires achieving specific desired outcomes and leads to a recursive feedback loop, further strengthening the community and schools. Various methods of measuring the success of education organizing are discussed along with specific examples from around the country. The author’s conclusion is that while some outcomes, such as student testing, have not met expectations, the benefits to the community overall are clear.


Sanders, M. G., & Lewis, K. C. (2005). Building Bridges Toward Excellence: Community Involvement in High Schools. High School Journal, 88(3), 1-9.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/high_school_journal/v088/88.3sanders.pdf

The authors examine the attitudes and motivations of community partnerships in high schools. Using three high schools as case studies it was found that similar difficulties resulted in a lower degree of partnership compared to elementary schools in the same regions. This was attributed mainly to features unique to high schools, primarily school size and structure, and the initiative and training of faculty and administration. Also, school staff emphasized a lack of time as a disincentive. The types of programs presented as successful examples seem to my eye to be fairly ordinary, and not particularly beneficial to the community as a whole, but geared more toward improving individual student achievement and general school improvement. Common student centered activities included student scholarships, tutoring and mentoring programs, and job shadowing. Community partnership examples included co-sponsored cultural events, health fairs, food drives, and advertisements in monthly school newsletters. The authors offered advice for schools interested in promoting community partnerships: prioritize the process, permit time, and promote community ownership.



Hayes, D., & Chodkiewicz, A. (2006). School-Community Links: Supporting Learning in the Middle Years. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 3-18.
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.montclair.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ729260&site=ehost-live

This qualitative study looked at how schools and communities contribute to student engagement in low-income middle schools. The study looked at relations between school and community from three perspectives: 1) student focused links at the school and community level, 2) parent focused links, regarding communication and family development, and 3) community focused links at the district and school level. The study uncovered a disconnect between their understanding of the nature of community and learning. Among all groups was the belief that learning is an activity relegated to schools. High school executives acknowledged the importance of school-community links, but gave them low priority as they felt these links had little impact on learning. Widespread was the belief that teachers play the most important role in influencing learners in the middle school years, but parents expressed frustration in communicating with teachers, and teachers expressed the same about parents. Students especially, had a limited definition of learning, relegating it almost exclusively to the school. They were aware of teachers’ low expectations and felt that their characterization as “at risk” students was imposed by the educational system and didn’t accurately represent who they were. They spoke of their frustration and powerlessness at the limiting nature this had on their ability to direct their futures. The authors identified a lack of funding to be a major barrier to providing more resources, as time and staff shortages were at the center of much of the complaints from the school staff and administration. However, attitudes of school- based personnel are seen as the primary hurdle to support of more community based initiatives.


Boyd-Zaharias, J., & Pate-Bain, H. (2008). Class Matters--In and out of School. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(1), 40-44.
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.montclair.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ810098&site=ehost-live

This article was an interesting outline of the major issues related to closing the achievement gap in our schools. The authors map their strategy to Maslow’s Hierarchy of a Self Actualized Society. At the bottom, the foundation of transformation they have placed affordable housing in stable neighborhoods, citing the correlation between student high mobility and poor performance in schools. Next is a living income and health care; there is a well-documented link between poverty and children’s’ readiness for school. Early childhood education is the next step, and has strong research-based evidence to show that it saves both children and money. The last step before self-actualization is smaller K-3 classes and improved instructional practices. Although the evidence for the benefits of smaller K-3 classes is clear, more study is needed to assess the effects of smaller classes in the higher grades. In addition to this pyramid plan, the authors advocate educating policy-makers of “three inconvenient truths.” 1) The class inequities in our country are at unacceptable levels, and growing. 2) School reform alone will never be sufficient to close the achievement gap. 3) To make real, lasting change in the social and economic ills affecting lower-class children’s lives will cost a great deal of money. A starting point, according to the authors, would be for the federal government to live up to its promises of money under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the precursor to NCLB.) Since 2002, the report states, the government has failed to pay states and school districts $54.7 billion. I wonder if it might not make sense to reexamine the costs of complying with NCLB; maybe the benefits aren’t worth the hamstrings.