Partnering across districts, schools, and other community organizations has become ubiquitous as a policy for promoting change. Despite growing attention to and scholarship on district–community partnerships, there is little examination of the organizational mechanisms involved in sustaining them.
Purpose/Objectives
This study examines the ways in which district–community partnerships establish and sustain legitimacy with multiple constituencies over time. Drawing on institutional theory, these analyses extend current theories of legitimation by describing the legitimacy-building events of districts and their community partners as they craft partnerships over time.
Research Design
I used a qualitative multi-case-study design to build grounded theory based on three district–community partnerships. Interviews with partnership leaders, focus groups with governance team members, and observations were collected between 2012 and 2014. Thematic analysis was conducted within and across the three cases to identify legitimacy-building activities.
Findings/Results
Five mechanisms for building legitimacy emerged across the three district–community partnerships: funder endorsement, attention to reciprocity, service provision, dedicated formal staff roles, and a systems-building approach. Each mechanism was deployed across the stages of partnership (e.g., identity formation, recruitment, sustainability). These mechanisms were used to leverage legitimacy with one stakeholder group to build new legitimacy with other stakeholder groups, creating complex chains of legitimacy across partners over time.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The findings extend current research on both legitimacy frameworks and the use of community partnerships in education reform. Themes across cases highlight the recursive nature of legitimacy during the recruitment of new partners, how partnerships can build legitimacy across cultural divides, and the role of external funders in supporting legitimacy building across multiple sets of stakeholders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsL. A., & GibbsJ. T. (2002). Disrupting the logic of home-school relations: Parent involvement strategies and practices of inclusion and exclusion. Urban Education, 37, 384–407).
2.
AlinskyS. D. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York, NY: Random House.
3.
Attride-StirlingJ. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405).
4.
AuerP. (2013). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
AustinJ. E., & SeitanidiM. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758).
6.
BillettS., OvensC., ClemansA., & SeddonT. (2007). Collaborative working and contested practices: Forming, developing and sustaining social partnerships in education. Journal of Education Policy, 22(6), 637–656).
7.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BrykS. A., SebringP. B., AllensworthE., LuppescuS., & EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BrysonM. J., CrosbyB., & StoneM. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl.), 44–55).
10.
BurrV. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London, England: Routledge.
11.
CardiniA. (2006). An analysis of the rhetoric and practice of educational partnerships in the UK: An arena of complexities, tensions and power. Journal of Education Policy, 21(4), 393–415).
12.
CoburnC. E. (2005). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23–52).
13.
CoburnC. E., BaeS., & TurnerE. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364–399).
14.
CooperB. S., CibulkaJ. G., & FusarelliL. D. (2008). Handbook of education politics and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
DahlstedtM. (2009). Governing by partnerships: Dilemmas in Swedish education policy at the turn of the millennium. Journal of Education Policy, 24(6), 787–801).
16.
DiMaggioP. J., & PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160).
17.
DomL., & VerhoevenJ. C. (2006). Partnership and conflict between parents and schools: How are schools reacting to the new participation law in Flanders (Belgium)?Journal of Education Policy, 21(5), 567–597).
18.
DroriI., & HonigB. (2013). A process model of internal and external legitimacy. Organization Studies, 34(3), 345–376).
EpsteinJ. L., GalindoC. L., & SheldonS. B. (2011). Levels of leadership: Effects of district and school leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 462–495).
21.
EpsteinJ. L., & SheldonS. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 308–318).
22.
GilesC., & HargreavesA. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156).
23.
GoldE., SimonE., MundellL., & BrownC. (2004). Bringing community organizing into the school reform picture. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 54S–76S).
24.
GreenwoodR., SuddabyR., & HiningsC. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 58–80).
25.
GronskiR., & PiggK. (2000). University and community collaboration. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 781–792).
26.
GubaE. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–91).
27.
HagedoornJ., & DuystersG. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: The preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 167–188).
28.
HaigT. (2014). Equipping schools to fight poverty: A community hub approach. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(9), 1018–1035).
29.
HeadB. W., & AlfordJ. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739).
30.
HenigJ. R., & StoneC. N. (2008). Rethinking school reform: The distractions of dogma and the potential for a new politics of progressive pragmatism. American Journal of Education, 114(3), 191–218).
31.
HornsbyJ. S., BloodgoodJ. M., HaytonJ., & KuratkoD. F. (2013). Network legitimacy diffusion: A model for corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 307–322).
32.
HouserJ. H. W. (2016). Community- and school-sponsored program participation and academic achievement in a full-service community school. Education and Urban Society, 48(4), 324–345).
33.
HumanS. E., & ProvanK. G. (2000). Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm multilateral networks: A comparative study of success and demise. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 327–365).
34.
IrizarryJ. G., & RaibleJ. (2011). Beginning with el barrio: Learning from exemplary teachers of Latino students. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(3), 186–203).
35.
IshimaruA. M. (2014a). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of district-community collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 188–216).
36.
IshimaruA. M. (2014b). When new relationships meet old narratives: The journey towards improving parent-school relations in a district-community organizing collaborative. Teachers College Record, 116(2), 1–49).
37.
KohlG. O., LenguaL. J., & McMahonR. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school: Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), 501–523).
38.
KumarR., & DasT. K. (2007). Interpartner legitimacy in the alliance development process. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1425–1453).
39.
LauM. (2014). Flexibility with a purpose: Constructing the legitimacy of spatial governance partnerships. Urban Studies, 51(9), 1943–1959).
40.
LeChasseurK. (2014). Critical race theory and the meaning of “community” in district partnerships. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(3), 305–320).
41.
LeChasseurK. (2017). Sustaining community partnership across transition in district leadership. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership. Advance online publication.
42.
LiebermanA., & GrolnickM. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 7–46).
43.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44.
LowB., & JohnstonW. J. (2010). Organizational network legitimacy and its impact on knowledge networks: The case of China's TD-SCDMA mobility technology. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(6), 468–477).
45.
MappK. L. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their children's learning. School Community Journal, 13(1), 35–64).
46.
MarchingtonM., & VincentS. (2004). Analysing the influence of institutional, organizational and interpersonal forces in shaping inter-organizational relations. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1029–1056).
47.
MarshJ. A. (2007). Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics, and community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
48.
MarshJ. A., StrunkK. O., Bush-MecenasS. C., & HuguetA. (2015). Democratic engagement in district reform: The evolving role of parents in the Los Angeles Public School Choice Initiative. Educational Policy, 29, 51–84).
49.
MarxS., & SaavedraC. M. (2014). Understanding the epistemological divide in ESL education: What we learned from a failed university-school district collaboration. Urban Education, 49(4), 418–439).
50.
MayerA., WoulfinS., & WarholL. (2015). Moving the center of expertise: Applying a communities of practice framework to understand coaching in urban school reform. Journal of Educational Change, 16, 101–123).
51.
MedirattaK., & FruchterN. (2001). Mapping the field of organizing for school improvement. New York, NY: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University.
52.
MedirattaK., ShahS., & McAlisterS. (2009). Community organizing for stronger schools: Strategies and successes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
53.
MitraD. L., & GrossS. J. (2009). Increasing student voice in high school reform: Building partnerships, improving outcomes. Educational Management Administration Leadership, 37(4), 522–543).
54.
MurrellP. C. (1999). Chartering the village: The making of an African-centered charter school. Urban Education, 33(5), 565–583).
55.
OlivosE. M. (2006). The power of parents: A critical perspective of bicultural parent involvement in public schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
56.
OstrowerF. (2005, Spring). The reality underneath the buzz of partnerships: The potentials and pitfalls of partnering. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 34–41).
PiertJ. H. (2013). Thirty years in the storm: Leadership at an African-centered school. Urban Review, 45, 376–394).
59.
RueedeD. (2013). Legitimation work within a cross-sector social partnership. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2013, 449–454).
60.
SandersM. G. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a community-based organization support and sustain school, family, and community partnerships. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1693–1712).
61.
SandersM. G. (2012a). Achieving scale at the district level: A longitudinal multiple case study of a partnership reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 154–186).
62.
SandersM. G. (2012b). Sustaining programs of school, family, and community partnerships: A qualitative longitudinal study of two districts. Educational Policy, 26(6), 845–869).
63.
SchutzA. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691–743).
64.
ScottK. W., & HowellD. (2008). Clarifying analysis and interpretation in grounded theory: Using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(2), 1–15).
65.
ScottW. R., & MeyerJ. (1991). The organization of societal sectors. In DiMaggioP.J., & PowellW.W. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organization analysis (pp. 108–140)). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
66.
ScribnerS. M. P., & FernandezE. (2014). Queriamos algo bueno … para nuestros hijos y tambien para nosotras: A Freireian analysis of organizational narratives of Latino parent-school engagement. Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies. Advance online publication.
67.
SeddonT., BillettS., & ClemansA. (2004). Politics of social partnerships: A framework for theorizing. Journal of Education Policy, 19(2), 123–142).
68.
SeitanidiM. M. (2008). Adaptive responsibilities: Nonlinear interactions in cross sector social partnerships. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 10, 51–64).
69.
SelskyJ. W., & ParkerB. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849–873).
70.
SheldonS. B., & EpsteinJ. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 4–26).
71.
SheldonS. B., & EpsteinJ. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 196–207).
72.
SheldonS. B., & Van VoorhisF. L. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their development and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 125–148).
73.
ShentonA. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75).
74.
SinghP., HeimansS., & GlasswellK. (2014). Policy enactment, context and performativity: Ontological politics and researching Australian National Partnership policies. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 826–844).
75.
SmedleyL. (2001). Impediments to partnership: A literature review of school-university links. Teachers and Teaching, 7(2), 189–209).
76.
SmrekarC., & MawhinneyH. B. (1999). Rethinking linkages between schools, families and communities. In MurphyJ., & LouisK.S. (Eds.), Handbook of educational administration (pp. 602–636)). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
77.
SoskaT., & ButterfieldA. K. J. (2010). University-community partnerships: Universities in civic engagement. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Social Work Practice Press.
78.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
79.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610).
80.
SupovitzJ. (2008). Melding internal and external support for school improvement: How the district role changes when working closely with external instructional support providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 459–478).
81.
TyackD., & TobinW. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479).
82.
ValliL., StefanskiA., & JacobsonR. (2015). Typologizing school-community partnerships: A framework for analysis and action. Urban Education, 51(7), 719–747).
83.
Van VoorhisF. L., & SheldonS. B. (2004). Principals' roles in the development of U.S. programs of school, family, and community partnerships. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(1), 55–70).
84.
WalshM. E., & BackeS. (2013). School-university partnerships: Reflections and opportunities. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(5), 594–607).
85.
WarrenM. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–173).
86.
WarrenM. R. (2010). Community organizing for education reform. In OrrM., & RogersJ. (Eds.), Public engagement for public education (pp. 139–172)). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
87.
WarrenM. R., & MappK. L. (2011). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform. New York, NY: Oxford.
88.
WeberE. P., & KhademianA. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334–349).
89.
WellsR., GiffordE., BaiY., & CorraA. (2015). A network perspective on dropout prevention in two cities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51, 27–57).
90.
ZelditchM. (2001). Processes of legitimation: Recent developments and new directions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 4–17).
