Santa AnaThe

Partnership

Santa Ana is part of the Kellogg ENLACE(ENgaging LAtino Communities forEducation) initiative. In Spanish, enlacemeans link or weave. ENLACE isweaving together a network of K-12schools, postsecondary institutions,educators, parents, students, andcommunity groups. ENLACE isstrengthening the K-16 pathway tocollege by increasing student supportsat key transition points where youth canexperience problems that lead to failure.Launched in 1997, the initiative is madeup of 13 partnerships based in Arizona,California, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico,New York, and Texas. About 75 percentof the nation’s Latino college studentsare concentrated in these states.

The Santa Ana Partnership

Table of ContentsI. Introduction ................................................................................................................................4

History of Santa Ana Partnership Initiatives ..................................................................................7II. Background on How Partnerships Work ................................................................................9III. Stable Partnership Elements Over the Years ...................................................................... 11

A. A Vision of Access and Success in Higher Education for All Students in Santa Ana .......... 11B. Stability of Institutional Leadership .....................................................................................12C. Individual Leadership at High Levels ..................................................................................14D. New Leadership Skills for a New Way of Working .............................................................15E. Consistent Use of Data in Strategic Planning ....................................................................16

IV. Factors That Have Supported the Partnership ...................................................................18A. Commitment to Trust .........................................................................................................18B. Joint Interaction at Multiple Levels ......................................................................................19C. Risk Taking by Trying New Models of Working ...................................................................23D. Flexibility for the Partnership To Evolve ..............................................................................24E. Noncompetitive Placement of the Partners .......................................................................26

V. Aspects of the Partnership That Have Evolved Over the Years .......................................28A. Moving Toward a Model of Parent, Student, and Community Empowerment ....................28

1. The Role of Parents and Students .................................................................................292. The Role of Community-Based Organizations ..............................................................31

B. Changing Expectations and Attitudes About Education......................................................34C. Moving Toward a Culture of Partnership Embedded in the Educational Institutions...........35D. Moving From Programs to Policy.......................................................................................37

VI. Future of the Partnership .......................................................................................................39Appendix: Santa Ana Partnership, Blueprint for Change ...........................................................40Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................44

The ENLACE (ENgaging LAtino Communities for Education) initiative team at the W.K. KelloggFoundation commissioned this case study of the Santa Ana Partnership, an ENLACE grantee.The primary author was Leena Mangrulkar, an independent consultant and evaluator who livesin Ann Arbor, Michigan. Special thanks are due to the many members of the Partnership whoseinsights contributed to this case study. Several individuals dedicated additional amounts oftime to coordinating this effort, including Sara Lundquist, vice president of student services atSanta Ana College, and her colleagues, associate dean Lilia Tanakeyowma and executivesecretary Terry Coleman; Juan Francisco Lara, assistant vice chancellor at the University ofCalifornia, Irvine; Lewis Bratcher, assistant superintendent of the Santa Ana Unified SchoolDistrict; and Stephanie Schneider, director of evaluation at the Center for EducationalPartnerships at the University of California, Irvine.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation ENLACE Team

Miguel Satut, Lead Program Director

Tony Berkley, Evaluation Manager

Teri Byrd, Meeting Planner

David Cournoyer, Communications Manager

Winnie Hernandez-Gallegos, Program Director

Valorie Johnson, Program Director

Sue Kellay, Program Assistant

Alice Warner, Program Director/Public Policy

W.K. Kellogg Foundation Youth and Education Programs

Gail McClure, Vice President for Programs

Credits

David Cournoyer – Editor

Vanguard Communications, Washington, DC – Design and Contributing Writing

Michael McDermott, Portland, OR – Principal Photography

Joel Nakamura, Santa Fe, NM – Artwork

No matter what your line of

work, change is a hard thing. It requires

working differently, thinking in a new way,

unsettling the status quo. As habits are hard to

break, change takes training and practice.

Achieving change is hard work. Since making

change often requires giving ground, the process

calls upon leaders who can confidently

collaborate — and sometimes compromise — in

order to benefit a common good.

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation seeks social

change by investing in communities,

institutions, and leaders that work together for

the common purpose of improving the future

well-being of our children. Often, the best

solutions are found when “top-down”

institutional knowledge meets grounded,

“bottom-up” community experience. And for the

change to last, leaders need to apply

community-based solutions while

simultaneously adopting institutional and

governmental policies that are aligned and

coordinated in a permanent fashion.

Frequently, the Foundation invests in local

partnerships to accomplish this collaboration

and — eventually — alignment of policies and

systems. The concepts of partnership and

Preface

1

To put more youngsters on an early path to college, the Santa Ana Partnership has created 12 community-based“Reading Corners” to increase children’s literacy levels.

alignment are complicated. The Santa Ana

Partnership, as part of the W.K. Kellogg

Foundation’s ENLACE (ENgaging LAtino

Communities for Education) initiative, brings

them to life in a way that should be meaningful

to other communities seeking lasting change —

by engaging all stakeholders in a community

and motivating them to work together for a

common goal. Through the vehicle of

partnership, the challenges and burdens are

lightened, the victories are sweeter, and the

culture of cooperation deepens.

The Santa Ana Partnership started on this path

more than 20 years ago. First, leaders from

multiple educational institutions representing

different educational systems had to find

common ground and a unifying goal, which is to

get more Santa Ana young people to college.

Then they had to commit precious time and

resources. To do this, they ceded control and

“turf” for the sake of the shared goal and vision.

The work as it has evolved is not simple. The

formation of a partnership and the perpetual

work to sustain it is time- and labor-intensive.

Educational resources are at an extraordinary

premium and declining as the student population

grows. Partner organizations and their leaders

are constantly changing. And policy reform

requires the engagement of local, state, and

national groups, often with very different goals

and perspectives on what it takes to influence

student academic achievement. What has

become clear, however, is that no single entity

can effect the kind of change that is required to

link public educational systems to each other

and to the community.

In this case study, you will see many factors

emerge that helped the Santa Ana Partnership

expand and thrive over 20 years. Constant

communication across the multiple institutions

Getting on the same page: School principals and counselors take time at the strategic planning retreat to find waysto serve Santa Ana youth.

2

was key. Over the years, the institutions have

even developed shared staff positions.

Additionally, “match-making” brought staff from

different educational institutions together around

meaningful work and strengthened the

collaboration. Collecting and using data, as well

as self-reflection, were critical. So were victories

resulting in new school district policies and new

college and university procedures. Supportive

leadership from the top also was significant.

Over time, partners stopped introducing

themselves as representatives of their own

institutions and started identifying themselves as

partners committed to a common mission.

In the end, change involves leadership at the

top and the bottom. But no matter where

someone is positioned in the process, change

always starts with people, as this document

clearly shows. If you are dedicated to helping

your own community or institution achieve

positive change, hopefully you’ll hear your own

voice within these pages.

3

Picture proof that 12 community sites have “readingcornered.”

Santa Ana is a large and richly diverse

city located just south of Los Angeles,

California, with a population of almost 334,000.

This “majority-minority” city has the greatest

percentage of Spanish-speaking residents of all

large cities in the United States. Since the 1980s,

Santa Ana has been a gateway for immigrants

newly arrived in the United States. The 2000

Census showed that almost three-quarters of all

residents speak Spanish. With 46 percent of all

residents being of school age and younger, Santa

Ana has the youngest population of large U.S.

cities; and more than 65 percent of all K-12

students in the Santa Ana school district are

learning English as a second language.

The Santa Ana Partnership strives to address

multiple barriers to educational achievement faced

by these students: a majority are simultaneously

trying to master the English language and

academic subjects; high school students frequently

have not been prepared for college through their K-

12 coursework; information about college access

and financial aid is often limited; cultural and other

barriers have made it difficult for parents to engage

in their children’s education; and from early ages

many students in Santa Ana fall behind in academic

I. Introduction

4

achievement, making it difficult, if not impossible, to

catch up in time to access higher education.

How can an educational community respond to

these challenges? In the case of Santa Ana, local

educators, institutional leaders, community

advocates, and others have created a remarkably

cohesive and resilient educational partnership as a

vehicle for transforming the educational system.

With its base in local public educational institutions,

this partnership has adopted a student-centered

vision: that all young people in this largely first-

generation, English-language-learning

community can make it to college and succeed

once there. While the vision is simple, the path

requires a series of coordinated efforts on the part

of local educational institutions and the larger

community. Having begun in 1983, the Santa Ana

Partnership has served as the vehicle to create an

ever-growing constellation of programmatic and

policy efforts over the last 20 years.

5

The Student Teacher Educational 1983 University of California Office of the PresidentPartnership (STEP) Council College Board (Educational Equality Project)

UCI California Writing Project 1983 University of California Office of the PresidentUCI Subject Matter Projects 2000

California Academic Partnership Program 1984 State of California, University of California(CAPP) (two Awards) 1987 Office of the President

The Next STEP 1987 Carnegie Corporation

Santa Ana 2000 1989 (Please see note below.)

Fund for the Improvement of 1990 U.S. Department of EducationPostsecondary Education

The Urban Partnership Program 1991 Ford Foundation

PRISM 1992 National Science Foundation

SAFEMAP 1995 National Science FoundationSUMS 1998 (Both led by CSU Fullerton.)

UC Irvine Faculty Outreach Initiatives/ 1996 University of California Office of the PresidentSchool University Partnership Program (SUP)

Community Outreach Partnership Center 1996 U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD)

The Pew Civic Leadership Initiative 1997 Pew Partnership for Civic Change in associationwith The Pew Charitable Trust

Santa Ana Teacher’s Institute 1998 Yale/New Haven Teacher’s Institute in associationwith Dewitt Wallace Reader’s Digest Fund

Middle College High School 1998 California Community Colleges

Collaborating for Educational 1998 Ford FoundationReform Initiative

Goals 2000 1998 California State University Systemwide Initiative

Title V HSI Strengthening Institutions 2001 U.S. Department of EducationInitiative (individual and collaborative) 2003

GEAR UP 1999/ U.S. Department of Education2002

ENLACE 1999 W.K. Kellogg Foundation

MicroEnterprise Center 2000 U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD)

FOCUS! 2002 National Science Foundation

Early College High School 2003 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,W.K. Kellogg Foundation, The Ford Foundation

Note: Santa Ana 2000 was a locally funded initiative begun in 1989 to bring together the City of Santa Ana, theSanta Ana Chamber of Commerce, the Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana College, and the Univer-sity of California, Irvine, to create a strategic coalition between education and local government and businessand civic organizations for the purpose of improving local education and increasing the number of studentswho attend college from the greater Santa Ana area.

Santa Ana Partnership Initiatives:Summary of Major Supplemental Funding Supports

Initiative Year Began Funder

6

Catalyzed by a series of publicly and privatelyfunded initiatives targeting the public K-16educational pipeline, the four primary partners(the Santa Ana Unified School District; SantaAna College; University of California, Irvine; andCalifornia State University, Fullerton) have beenfacilitators of changes in educational practice inSanta Ana. Jointly administered academic andstudent support programs can be found atpractitioner and administrative levels throughoutthe partner schools, college, and universities.

Examples of changes in the educational systemover the last 20 years include:

• More rigorous curriculum standards havebeen developed in the Santa Ana UnifiedSchool District.

• K-12 school teachers and local college anduniversity faculty in Santa Ana now worktogether on college placements, curriculum,and professional development.

• One-stop access to higher educationinformation now exists in the high schools.

7

History of Santa AnaPartnership Initiatives

Recent Student Academic OutcomesOver the years, the Santa Ana Partnership has made substantial gains in institutional reforms leading tostudent achievement. Some examples of those achievements include:

• Algebra participation and success of Santa Ana high school students has increased dramatically.Five times more high school students are now enrolled in Algebra courses, and the percentage ofstudents obtaining passing grades rose from 45 percent to 56 percent between 2001-02 and 2002-03.

• Santa Ana College rose from forty-fourth to seventh statewide in terms of Latino student transfer tothe University of California system between 1991 and 2000.

• CalGrant applications (for state-based financial aid) more than doubled district-wide since setting upthe Higher Education Centers at the four high schools.

• Elementary literacy is steadily improving. Fifteen percent of ENLACE elementary school cohorts inthe third grade in 1999 received a passing language arts score, while 26 percent of this same studentcohort, now in sixth grade, are passing.

• An increasing number of students in the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) are taking theStudent Achievement Test (SAT). While the percentage of Latino students in the state taking the SAThas remained steady at 7 percent over the past three years, the percentage of SAUSD students hasincreased from 15 percent to 21 percent between 2000 and 2002.

• As reported in the annual Graduate Planning Survey, the rates for college applications and collegeacceptance has been rising. In 2002, 64 percent of SAUSD high school seniors applied for college;in 2003, the number rose to 71 percent.

• A significant increase is being seen in college applications to California State University, Fullerton, upfrom 52 students in 2002 to 249 students in 2003.

• At Santa Ana College, enrollment of Latino students has risen from 41 percent to 45 percent from2002 to 2003.

• In secondary mathematics, students are passing the 8th grade state math test (the SAT9) at higherrates. In 1999-00, 20 percent of eighth grade students passed the SAT9 math test, while 30 percentpassed in 2001-02.

• Transfer rates from the two-year college tofour-year universities have improved.

• Santa Ana parents now teach other parentswhat it takes to get their children intocollege.

• Peer learning communities for first-yearcollege students have improved retentionrates.

• Multiple opportunities exist for young SantaAna students to engage with the localcollege and universities and gain earlyexposure to post-secondary education.

Over time, the Partnership has expanded itsstrategies across many fronts — from familiesto institutions. In fact, one of the biggestchallenges faced by the Partnership now is howto connect the growing branches of activity tothe overall vision without hampering creativityand flexibility.

This study of the Santa Ana Partnership exploresthe roles of individuals and institutions in thePartnership and the nature of the actual workthat has helped maintain its momentum.Questions guiding the case study include:

• How have individuals and institutionschanged through the Partnership’scollaborative work across institutions?

• What roles have diverse partners, includingparents, students, and communityorganizations, played in the Partnership?

• What factors have helped sustain thePartnership?

• What is the future direction of this work?

In-depth interviews were conducted with 18partner members from key institutions and thecommunity. The study included a site visit toSanta Ana and a review of historical documentsto examine the Partnership’s evolution overthe years.

8

Bringing everyone to the table: Santa Ana Unified School District principals meet with Partnershipcolleagues to develop academic and co-curricular activities for Hispanic youth.

Educational partnerships betweenuniversities and public schools are not a

new idea. In fact, historical examples of school-university collaborations date back to the1890s.1 They have taken the form of pre-serviceteacher education, training for schooladministrators, curriculum development, andeducational research projects.2 However,partnerships that move beyond an individualproject or discrete activity into a new way ofworking are far more difficult to sustain over thelengthy period of time needed to see change.

Anecdotal information shows show thateducational partnerships, no matter howenthusiastically begun, are more likely than notto fail or simply lose momentum.3 Specialfunding is often the driver for the formation of apartnership. However, partnerships started inresponse to a funding mandate are likely to fadeonce the grant and the project end. Sustainablepartnerships that achieve lasting changeintentionally plan from the beginning to migratethe most effective small-scale practices to large-scale efforts that move into the core ofinstitutional practice. Documenting theeffectiveness of small-scale practices is key, butall too often even the proven successes are notsustained due to the complexity of theinstitutional change process itself.

In some ways this should not be surprising,considering the challenges inherent in bringingtogether multiple institutional cultures. Thecultures of public schools and universities vary

widely. Universities often place equal emphasison the education of students and the creation of“new knowledge,” whereas K-12 institutionsfocus solely on the educational mission. Inschools, the tempo of work is rapid, but withspecific breaks; for university faculty, class loadsare smaller, but expectations include researchand scholarly publications. Teachers arerequired to address a specific set of standardsand mandated guidelines, while faculty membersinsist that autonomy is required to maintainintellectual freedom.4 Partners are challenged tocollaborate not only around educational content,but also to share in governance, administrationof funds, communication, and staff allocation forpartnership activities. Genuine collaboration —sharing both power and resources to solvecomplex problems — remains rare.5

9

II. Background on How Partnerships Work

When it comes to filling out college applications, onemistake can mean the difference between acceptanceand rejection. This Higher Education Center volunteerhelps make sure all of this high school student’s i’s aredotted and t’s are crossed.

And yet, some educational partnerships are ableto address the inherent challenges ofcollaboration and survive the test of time.Supportive factors known to extend the length ofpartnerships and increase their impact include:

• shared values and philosophies;

• mutually beneficial goals and objectives;

• supportive leadership at the highest levelsof the institutions;

• activities that are grounded in the needs ofthe community;

• clear roles and responsibilities of eachpartner;

• clear channels for communication; and

• specific and measurable outcomes,benchmarks, and measures of progress ofthe partnership.6

The example of the Santa Ana Partnershipvalidates the importance of these factors.However, for these qualities to emerge, it tookmany years of funded activity and sustainedvision. And as the leadership members arequick to say, none of it has been easy and thechallenges continue. The next section illustratesthe ways in which vision, leadership,institutional roles, and use of data have playedthemselves out over the years throughPartnership activities.

10

1 Greene and Tichenor, 1999.2 Brookhart and Loadman, 1990.3 Brookhart and Loadman, 1990.4 Peel, et al., 2002.5 Haire and Dodson - Pennington, 1990.6 Barnett et al., 1999.

A. A Vision of Access and Successin Higher Education for AllStudents in Santa Ana

“Our partnership benefits from a singular focus… of improving and growing the pipeline [from Kto 16] to see that the majority have access tohigher education for the people of thiscommunity, for students in this community.”

—Dr. John NixonSanta Ana College administrator

While there is a historical mandate for alleducational segments to work together

in California, the Santa Ana Partnership createda structure to make collaboration more effective.The California Master Plan for Higher Education,originally developed in 1960 through thecollaboration of state and university educationalagencies, provided the springboard for a K-16vision. Differing and complementary roles for thecommunity colleges, the state college system,and the state universities were carefullydelineated. Community colleges in Californiawould provide the first two years of highereducation and support transfer to four-yearinstitutions; the state colleges (now stateuniversities) would emphasize bachelor’sdegrees; and the nine state universities wouldemphasize graduate school and preparation forresearch careers. In 1987, a revised analysis ofthe California Master Plan highlighted theinefficiencies of the transfer function between thecommunity college and universities, providingfurther impetus for the universities to partner with

the community colleges. A significant challengeto the educational system is that the studentpopulation accessing higher education,including transfer from community college touniversity, is disproportionately white, while themajority of K-12 students are from communitiesof color. Addressing this break in the system iscritical to creating an integrated K-16educational system in California.

Building on this statewide vision, the Santa AnaPartnership emerged in 1983, not out of anyboard or grant mandate, but from educationalinstitutions and city and community leadersconcerned by the low academic achievement inthe community. Leading this effort was Dr.Manuel Gómez, then assistant vice chancellor foracademic affairs, student affirmative action, atthe University of California, Irvine (UCI), under theauspices of the Student/Teacher EducationalPartnership (Project STEP). As described in “ToAdvance Learning: A Handbook on Developing K-12 Postsecondary Partnerships,” Project STEPbegan with dialogue between representativesfrom the University and the Santa Ana schooldistrict. The focus was on improving the low levelof student academic preparation in Santa Ana.Throughout a full year of open forums and facultyexchanges, a set of direct services wasdesigned, including curriculum enhancementactivities, staff development, and student supportservices. However, what began as a traditional“service model” relationship between the twoinstutions has evolved into a reciprocal and multi-faceted partnership.7

11

III. Stable Partnership ElementsOver the Years

Further expansion to involve communitynonprofit organizations, parents, and others inthe Partnership work became possible withreceipt of funding from the Ford Foundation and,later, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Throughoutthis evolution, however, the vision has stayedfirmly grounded in efforts that support students’progress toward higher education.

The Partnership’s focus on students perhapsprovided the “glue” that kept the partnerstogether over the years. With their goalscentered on support for students, celebratingstudents’ successes and student-centeredmilestones, institutions were able to maintaininvolvement in the Partnership, while theirparticipation in various funding efforts ebbed andflowed. Many funded projects relied more heavilyon some partners than others; still, the student-based mission maintained the momentum of thePartnership as a whole.

B. Stability of InstitutionalLeadership

Another clear constant over the last 20 yearshas been the four public educational institutionsthat continue to lead the Santa Ana Partnership.These four public institutions — the Santa AnaUnified School District (SAUSD); the two-yearSanta Ana Community College (SAC); the four-year University of California, Irvine (UCI); and thefour-year California State University, Fullerton(CSUF) — have served as the stable elementswithin the governance structure, while differentcommunity, city, private school, and businesspartners come in and out of the Partnership asspecific funded initiatives emphasize their areasof strength. From the beginning, the lead public

institutions have brought their own institutionalcommitment to the work. As Robin Casselman,a university administrator, described theprocess, “We got used to having an annualretreat where we would get together and seehow we could make that little pot of moneymultiply by everyone … joining resources to it.”

12

A college mentor gives these high school students thescoop on the thrills as well as the rigors of college life.

The lead institutions, besides acting as brokersand administrators for Partnership activities,each fill a unique niche within the Santa Anaeducational system and need each other to fulfilltheir individual missions. This inherentcomplementarity is not unique to Santa Ana, butis intentionally woven into the structure of thePartnership initiatives. The role of SAUSD,beyond the mission of providing a high-qualityeducation to all students, is to provide a pre-collegiate program of study that is sufficientlyrigorous to enable graduates to have realoptions, either to go to college or to enter theworkforce. To succeed requires a restructuringof the schools toward “mastery learning,” asignificant departure from old constructs of

Latino teachers into Santa Ana and toencourage homegrown teachers to return totheir community to teach.

The University of California, Irvine, plays aunique role as the Partnership’s foundinginstitution and as a Tier 1 university locatedadjacent to the community of Santa Ana. Thepercentage of local Hispanic students attendingthe university continues to be low, but is rising.UCI staff provide training opportunities to SantaAna teachers in math, science, reading,language arts, the humanities, and socialscience. UCI engages the school district inlearning about new educational practice,curriculum development, and significantdiscipline-specific professional development. Inaddition, research faculty at UCI track theeducational progress of the Santa Anacommunity as part of the Partnership’s work.

All three higher education institutions haveeducational community outreach programs thatconnect internal academic and student affairs tothe community. As the primary college recruitersfor local Santa Ana students, SAC, UCI, andCSUF continuously work together to expandhigher education opportunity locally. Through an“Achieving College” task force, the highereducation outreach staff, counselors, localparents, and other community members jointlyimplement campus visits, support for collegeapplications, test preparation, and financial aidassistance for local students.The varied and unique roles of these four leadpartners highlight their dependence on eachother to achieve the vision of access to higher

collegiate preparation restricted to the gifted andtalented. In addition, the school district servesas the gatekeeper to SAC and the universitiesfor potential students. In fact,given the overwhelmingly Latino student body(92 percent), the higher education institutionslook toward SAUSD as a potential source ofstudents to support their individual goals ofcampus diversity.

Santa Ana College directly serves the highereducation needs of students in the localcommunity; it is the primary higher educationdestination of approximately 55 percent to 60percent of SAUSD high school graduates. Insome ways, it plays the role of broker betweenthe schools and the universities, serving as agateway, particularly for minority students,between high school and a four-year universitydegree. As an open-access public institution ofhigher education, SAC feels a specialresponsibility to foster and maximize thesuccess of local students.

The majority of transfer students from SantaAna College go to California State University,Fullerton. As a result, CSUF has a stronginterest in supporting academic excellence instudents from both SAUSD and SAC.Reducing the need for remedial courses atCSUF for both high school graduates andtransfer students is a motivating factor forpartnering. As one CSUF administrator put it,“You’re not going to get the types of studentsyou want if you don’t help them prepare.” Inaddition, CSUF serves as the primary teacherpreparation program for the city of Santa Ana. Itis therefore in a unique position to bring more

13

14

education for all students in Santa Ana. It is noaccident that in the late 1990s, when Partnershipprojects began to be highlighted in the community, themotto “Education First” was adopted by the SantaAna City Council and painted on a water tower in thecenter of the city, visible for miles in all directions.

C. Individual Leadershipat High Levels

Besides bringing the critical institutional partners tothe table, the Santa Ana Partnership has engagedindividuals at high levels of leadership within theinstitutions. As the research highlights, change ininstitutional practices and policies that can move aprogram from “the margins” to a central focus of aninstitution requires commitment and engagementfrom decision makers and institution leaders.8 Thelead players within the Santa Ana Partnershipinclude: the assistant superintendent of SAUSD;the vice president of student affairs at SAC; theassociate vice president for student affairs atCSUF; and the associate vice chancellor anddirector of the Center for Educational Partnershipsat UCI.

In contrast to many educational partnerships thathire an outside coordinator to manage activities,these high-level institutional staff provide thecoordination and leadership for the Partnership. AsDr. Stephanie Schneider, a staff member at UCI,described, “Instead of talking to a project manager, Ican speak directly to the vice president or assistantsuperintendent from another institution. It helps meby cutting through a lot of extra layers to get the jobdone.”As such, the Partnership has been able to addressinstitutional practices and policies that requireaccess to institutional decision makers. For

Institutional PartnersSanta Ana Unified School District:Home to over 60,000 students, 66.7percent of whom are English learners,the district is the fifth largest inCalifornia, with 91.6 percent of studentsidentified as Latino.

Santa Ana College: Founded in 1915,Santa Ana College is one of 108community colleges in the state. It nowhas more than 22,000 credit and nearly13,000 noncredit enrollees. As aHispanic-Serving Institution (CHSI),designated by the federal government,67 percent of its on-campus creditstudent population is Latino.

California State University, Fullerton:Founded in 1957, the third largest of23 California State universities, CSUFpresently enrolls over 32,000 students.While also an HSI, Fullerton’s studentpopulation is diverse, with 36 percentCaucasian students, 25.6 percentLatino, 21 percent Asian/PacificIslander, 3 percent African American,and 1 percent Native American.

University of California, Irvine: A Tier 1university with an undergraduatestudent population of over 19,000 andapproximately 4,200 graduate students,UCI opened in 1965 for studentinstruction. UCI’s undergraduatestudent body is approximately 47percent Asian/Pacific Islander, 26percent Caucasian, 8 percent Chicano/Latino, 2 percent African American, andless than 1 percent Native American.

commutes literally and figuratively between[schools, universities, and other partners].”9

These individuals are also referred to asgatekeepers.10 They represent their ownorganizations to others, support the other partnerorganizations publicly, facilitate informationsharing across the organizational boundaries,and help match needs and resources. At alllevels in the Santa Ana Partnership, partnermembers describe their roles as constantlyforging and reinforcing connections acrossinstitutions. For example, Denice Inciong, amember of the UCI evaluation team, describedher role as broader than “just crunching thenumbers, but really working with the professorson campus and linking them with the teachers atthe school site, and bringing undergraduatetutors in.”

Partner members both represent their respectiveorganizations to the Partnership and representthe Partnership to outsiders. A coordinator of aHigher Education Center, a one-stop collegeinformation center that is physically housed in thehigh schools, described her role as a “translator.”She said, “I bring the day-to-day perspective ofwhat it’s like in the high school into thePartnership.” Many Santa Ana partner membersdescribe the importance of negotiation skills tobalance the needs of their own institutions and theneeds of partner institutions and the Partnershipas a whole. Again, Denice Inciong described, “It’salways a touchy issue asking folks for yet anotherround of data and numbers. I always need to thinkabout what they have going, what’s a realisticdeadline for them, and what my real needs are.”A unique local asset is the fact that manyindividuals in the Partnership have forged their

example, recruitment practices, school districtmath curricula, and dual enrollment agreementsbetween institutions are all issues that reach intothe heart of the organizations and have beenaddressed through Partnership efforts. Thisinstitutional commitment has also influenced thesustainability of the Partnership; leadership isless vulnerable to the “boom and bust” cycles ofexternal grant funding. And as the leaderscollaborate closely, their institutionaldepartments become increasinglyinterconnected at operational levels as a matterof structure and function.

On principle, none of the costs associated withthe salaries of Partnership leaders or theirsupport staff is underwritten by grant funds.However, this implies that the individual leaderstake on the additional tasks of the Partnership,requiring longer hours and extra dedication, andstretch them beyond their job descriptions. Thisdedication to a larger vision reflects theexpectation that the public educationalinstitutions in Santa Ana and their leadershiphave a shared responsibility to support the entireK-16 educational pipeline.

D. New Leadership Skills for aNew Way of Working

Besides expertise in the field of education andknowledge about the Santa Ana community, adifferent set of skills in the partner leaders iscritical to their effectiveness in collaboration. Theconcept of “boundary spanning,” described in thebusiness and social science fields, appears toaccurately illustrate the leadership roles. Withinthe educational realm, one researcher describesthe boundary spanner as “an intermediary who

15

careers in education working in multiple SantaAna institutions. A SAC administrator, IreneMalmgren, described the career path of onecolleague through both universities and recentlyto SAC as director of a teacher developmentproject. “He knows us, he has the relationships,he has the connections, he knows what our[community college] students [will] need at afour-year school,” she explained. The crossingover of staff allows these boundary spanners tobring a better understanding of the “outsidelayers of their own organizations and thepractices of all partnering agencies” to the work,said Lilia Tanakeyowma, director of the office ofschool and community partnerships at SAC.Recently, the Santa Ana Partnership has takenthe boundary-spanning roles one step further,hiring individual staff to work within and amongthe Santa Ana School District, Santa AnaCollege, and the four-year universities. Thesestaff members have office space in multiplebuildings, share phone lines and e-mail, andhave salaries paid through joint budgets. Thiscadre of “joint” staff is solidifying the concept ofshared institutional responsibility for acoordinated pathway to college.

E . Consistent Use of Data inStrategic Planning

Another constant element of the Partnership’swork over the last 20 years is the commitment tocollect and use data as the guiding focus of thestudent-centered vision. As the coordinator of oneof the Higher Education Centers stated, “If wedon’t start to see an increase in the number of ourstudents going off to college we have to askourselves, ‘What’s going to shake things up?’”Starting with the analyses of transfer rates from

community college to university back in the 1980s,the Partnership has intentionally invested increating data systems and in feeding back data toinstitutional and community partners. TheCalifornia Postsecondary Education Commissioncollects institutional data about enrollment andgraduation. These data alone, however, do notanswer questions about how students are doing inany particular community. Therefore, UCI, throughits Center for Educational Partnerships, integrates,and in some cases directly collects, a broader setof data to monitor the educational situation in SantaAna. This includes K-12 school achievementthrough state testing scores; enrollment inadvanced placement classes; high schoolgraduation rates; college application, enrollment,and graduation rates; transfer rates fromcommunity college to university; and bachelor’sdegree attainment rates.

“...the Santa AnaPartnership has taken theboundary-spanning rolesone step further, hiringindividual staff to workwithin and among the SantaAna School District, SantaAna College, and the four-year universities. Thesestaff members have officespace in multiple buildings,share phone lines and e-mail, and have salaries paidthrough joint budgets.”

16

Thanks to the Partnership, this young student has manyreading options at a local literary conference.

Getting access to and sharing data is built upona gradually established relationship acrosseducational institutions. As one UCI researcherput it, “I think that when I first came in [to theschool district], there was that feeling that [theuniversity] is just a data sucker. You know … thatall we want is to get the data. … But I’ve seen itevolve and [the school district] is asking a lotmore research or data-based questions … butit’s a slowly established relationship.”

The ability to maintain access to student datahas been a central element in Partnershipsuccess. Cross-organizational ties have beenestablished over time, with the critical elementsof trust, flexibility, and reciprocity serving askeys. In addition to trusting members to use datato highlight growth rather than to spotlightfailings, the Partnership has learned to be flexibleand work within institutional timelines andexisting deadlines. It has been important tonegotiate the timing and content of data requests sothe burden on any specific institutional partner is notoppressive. Likewise, whenever possible theinstitution requesting the data provides a report oranalysis in return for the data received.

Significantly, as the Partnership has evolved, thepriority regarding data collection and analysis hasmoved from project-specific information into thebroader context of student achievement data acrossthe K-16 pipeline for the entire Santa Anacommunity. A research and evaluation team thatincludes members of the lead institutions wasrecently formalized to provide that system-wideperspective.

Through the recent ENLACE grant, a “Blueprint forChange” was developed which illustrates thePartnership’s theory of change (see appendix). Itlinks the gaps in the educational system (forexample, high dropout rates for first-year collegestudents in Santa Ana) to the programs developedby the Partnership and its affiliated organizations, toaddress those domains. This blueprint is usedinternally as a guide and with external audiences,such as other universities and funders. It serves asa tool for communicating at a glance the scope anddepth of Partnership efforts, as well as the deliberateway in which this work connects to contributinginstitutional programs.

Over the years, the partner leaders have made itclear that it is in the Santa Ana community’s bestinterest to be as transparent, open, and honest aspossible about the story the data tells. A frequentquote echoed by Dr. Sara Lundquist, a vicepresident at SAC, is “It’s about truth-telling.”

17

7 Gomez, et al., 1990.8 Peel, et al., 2002.

9 Stevens, pg. 299, 1999.10 Bradshaw, 1999; Brass, 1984.

IV. Factors That HaveSupported the Partnership

While vision, leadership, and use of datahave remained constant over time,

various attitudes have also supported thePartnership’s continued evolution. A mutualcommitment to maintaining trust and a tolerancefor risk taking have supported necessarychanges in the Partnership over time.Additionally, flexibility that allows interactions atmultiple levels and positioning that allows formutual support rather than competition haveallowed the Partnership to continue despiteinstitutional pressures.

A. Commitment to Trust“[The Freshman Experience Program] createdtrust between math teachers and counselors,between English teachers and counselors …where they used to describe each other as ifthey had horns and cloven hooves.”

—Irene MalmgrenSAC administrator

Often discussed in the research literature, trustis a critical component in any effectivecollaborative venture.11 Building trust is not easywithin the educational (or any other) realm.Institutions and their staff members havediffering agendas, missions, bosses, boards,finances, and power dynamics. The Santa AnaPartnership appears to have built enough trustto work together at higher levels of theinstitutions and, concurrently, within pockets ofactivity at the level of staff (e.g., teachers,professors, and counselors).

While there is no one key to building trust, it hasbeen strengthened in Santa Ana over the yearsby the partner members coming through foreach other and showing mutual respect;modeling of trust by the leadership; and mutuallyprotecting partner institutions.

Partner members expressed genuine confidencein Partnership leaders’ commitment to do what isin the best interest of the community as a whole— not just in the best interest of their individualinstitutions. As partners fulfill their obligations toeach other, confidence grows.

18

Middle school students learn about the discipline andintensity needed for success in college.

For example, one school district colleaguemarvels at the added resources available to thegroup: “The fact that I can pick up the phone andcall UCI and say, ‘I want to do graduation at yourschool’ is invaluable. We essentially can’t pull itoff without them. … I can just say, ‘Cal StateFullerton, can we have a student panel?’ andthey’ll pull it off … because we have this historyof working together and we have thisunderstanding that we’re working together. Itgoes beyond [any single project].”

The mutual respect for partner opinions and themodeling of this by the leadership builds trust. Asone community-based organization (CBO)representative stated, “I felt a very genuinesense that there was an equality, even thoughI’m representing a small CBO. I was sitting nextto the vice chancellor of admissions of UCI, [but]I felt my opinion was as valued [as his]. So thereis really a sense of mutual exchange among thepartners. What you are bringing to this table is asvaluable as other people sitting at the table. Andthat has to be key in any sort of partnership.”

One of the keys to trust building in Santa Anahas been the proprietary role that the partnerleaders play in relation to each other’sinstitutions. They have worked together toprotect the reputations of not only their owninstitutions, but of the Partnership as a wholethrough careful management of potentiallydamaging misinformation, rumors, and crisissituations. The public relations needs of bothindividual partner institutions and of the groupare given mutual consideration, with theintention that the Partnership’s goals are notdistorted or thrown off course.

As the Partnership has grown over the years —adding programs and new supporters andpartners — the leadership has grappled withfinding a balance between constantlycommunicating internally to each partner aboutall activities and relying on trust to facilitatecommunication. As Dr. Lundquist asked, “Towhat degree do we communicate about thePartnership to everyone, and to what degree dowe trust each other to uphold the vision of thePartnership?” Through periodic retreats,newsletters, Web sites, and other channels,members of the larger partner institutions areengaged and informed about progress. Andthrough community forums, participativeresearch, regular meetings, and day-to-dayinteractions, this larger group provides input intopartnership decisions. The right balance is trickyyet necessary to maintain as the work continuesto expand.

Either way, trust is essential. As one SACadministrator put it, “It has gotten to where I don’tneed to know everything the … others in thePartnership are doing. … I get to see thechange, [but] I don’t need to be in the midst of itall. … We can’t all do everything and we can’t allknow everything about what everyone is doing,but there is a sense of that big picture.”

B. Joint Interactionat Multiple Levels

The collaboration amongst the educationalinstitutions has had a transformational effect onpeople and the institutions in which they work. Akey factor was the development of relationshipsthrough meaningful work activities foreducational practitioners in Santa Ana conducted

19

outside of typical professional boundaries. AsDr. Rita Cepeda, president of Santa AnaCollege, described, “While CEO support iscritical, it’s not at the CEO level where the realtransformation happens. It’s at the faculty level,at the school level, at the academic centerlevel.” Examples are found throughout thePartnership programs.

Early on, educational leaders in Santa Anarealized that for a K-16 vision to take root in theircommunity, they needed to connect the collegeand university professors with their teachingcounterparts at the feeder local high schools.Robin Casselman at UCI called the process

“matchmaking.” The “Discipline Dialogues,”started in 1990 as part of a grant from the Fundfor the Improvement of PostsecondaryEducation (FIPSE), were the result ofdramatically expanding the involvement ofuniversity faculty in the Partnership. As shedescribed it, “We needed a [convening event] tohave the high school folks meet the universityfolks. … We gathered teachers and communitycollege instructors, UCI faculty, and CSU facultyfrom like disciplines to engage in conversations.And that helped us.” Essentially, high schoolteachers and principals in math and Englishdiscussed key educational issues such as theplacement of their students when they go tocollege and the standards that must be met foradmission. As one former high school principaldescribed it, “What we were hearing at the timewas that students from Santa Ana high schoolswere being placed into Limited-EnglishProficiency classes when they went to SantaAna College … and so that was prolonging theirtime there … and if they’re not really prepared,what’s the chance of [graduating] from SantaAna College or transitioning into a four-yearinstitution?” The Discipline Dialogues helped toget all the different sets of educators in syncregarding such issues as curriculum andstudent assessment.

The one-on-one interactions between theeducators at all levels provided a “personalizationof the process. Some realization that we’re apiece of the continuum. … And when you spendtime together, you have time to develop history,relationships happen, and out of relationshipscomes trust,” said a UCI administrator.

“The one-on-oneinteractions between theeducators at all levelsprovided a‘personalization of theprocess. Some realizationthat we’re a piece of thecontinuum. … Andwhen you spend timetogether, you have time todevelop history,relationships happen,and out of relationshipscomes trust.’ ”

—UCI administrator

20

More recently, high school teachers andcommunity college instructors jointly reviewedhigh school student writing samples to placeincoming freshmen into the appropriate Englishclass at Santa Ana College. “Now, the Englishteachers at the high school are aware of thelevel of writing it takes for students in a [college]freshman composition course. And the collegeteachers have a new respect for the strugglesthe high school teachers have,” said IreneMalmgren, an SAC administrator. This episodebecame a lesson in staff development, as wellas inspired curriculum articulation betweeneducational systems. “The students are betterplaced and [teachers and college faculty] arenot strangers anymore. In many ways, that’s

The Summer ScholarsTransfer Institute

The Summer Scholars Transfer Instituteis a program that was designed morethan 10 years ago to boost the lowtransfer rate of Santa Ana Collegestudents to the UCI system. The Instituteconsists of an intensive 10-day residentialsummer institute at UCI for SAC students.Approximately 100 predominantly Latinostudents per year experience the institute,immersing themselves in university lifeliving with teachers and counselors at UCIwhile taking core academic courses.While students experiment with a differentacademic environment, they also have thechance to see if they can handle theemotional challenges that accompanycollege life. Many Hispanic students faceconflicts between their culture and theacademic culture, fear of failure, andsometimes even fear of success. “[The students] discovered they reallycould compete and do well, and theyactually came home thinking that theyconquered the world. If they could do athree-unit class in 10 days, they figuredthey could come home and take 30 unitsin a semester ... it was great for thestudents and it was great for facultybecause we also got to see what ourstudents did at UCI, bringing great ideaswhich have taken hold at Santa AnaCollege.”

— Irene MalmgrenSAC administrator

the benefit of a partnership. … We work fromour relationships all the time.”The Summer Scholars Transfer Institute (SSTI)introduces community college students to theacademic rigor and student life in a Tier 1

21

Through the Padres Promotores program, thesefathers learn that they can do a lot to help

their children succeed in college.

university. This intensive, 10-day residentialsummer institute is held directly on the UCIcampus. Irene Malmgren described thetransformational effect it has on the students:

“SSTI became one of the centerpieces of thework that we did in terms of a creative new wayof taking the Partnership and making it real. Wegave [community college] students a look at whatit meant to be a resident university student, to beaway from home, to learn what kind of scholarsthey could become. … [The instructional model]put a content teacher and a counselor in theclass all the time … [because] we were dealingwith the emotional as well as the academicresponse to what was going on. Often … whatgets in the way is the emotional response to thefear, not just of failing, but of succeeding … andso we dealt with a lot of those issues while wewere also driving in the application of study skills.… And [the students] saw the results. … Theydiscovered they really could compete and do welland they actually came home often thinking thatthey conquered the world. If they could do athree-unit class in 10 days, they figured theycould come home and take 30 units in asemester. So we had to do a little reality testingafterwards, but it was great for the students, andfor faculty because we also got to see what ourstudents did at UCI, bringing great ideas whichhave taken hold at Santa Ana College.”

Stemming from the success of SSTI and asimilar bridge program, Puente, the Partnershipdeveloped the Freshman Experience Program(FEP) to reach more community collegestudents. First implemented at Santa AnaCollege in the mid-1990s, every year

approximately 400 to 500 freshman students areorganized into “learning communities.” Theircourses are linked thematically and focus onacademic conent as well as study skilldevelopment. Teachers, faculty, and counselorswork as a team, coordinating assignments,exams, and other class activities in theirspecified courses. The program has shown animpact on the students: for the group ofstudents involved in FEP in fall 2002, only 13percent dropped out during the first semester,as opposed to the 26 percent of freshman not inthe program. Additionally, on average 20 percentmore FEP students pass their English coursesthan do other freshmen students, and past FEPgroups have completed required mathematicscourses more rapidly than other students.Besides the benefits to the students, the program

Freshman ExperienceProgram (FEP)

Helping more than 500 students asemester, the FEP has led to improvededucational outcomes and re-enrollment rates for Latino students atSanta Ana College for more than fiveyears. As a team, professors, staff, andcounselors support each other byattending each other’s class meetings,coordinating assignments, exams, andother class activities in their specificcourses. While academic supportprograms like FEP — even those withevidence of success — always facebudget issues during tough economictimes, an informal cost-benefit analysisshowed that the program pays foritself about halfway through thesecond semester.

22

connects faculty in new ways that allow theirstrengths to complement each other. “Where dopeople every month get together and talk aboutteaching? That’s just a powerful model and it’screated change around here,” said a SACadministrator. Counselors and teachers workingtogether in the classroom also bring theclassroom instruction and the support servicesdomains closer together for the college and itsstudents.

C. Risk Taking by TryingNew Models of Working

“We tried it all over the years … the in-servicetraining, the direct service to students, theadministrative training. … We tried them all and Ithink to the point now that it’s a pretty solidpartnership.”

— CSUF administrator

Another element that has supported the growthand sustainability of the Santa Ana Partnershipis the willingness to try different programapproaches in support of the students. At the

beginning of any collaborative venture,members struggle through differing visions tocoalesce enough to move forward. The SantaAna Partnership was no different. As one of theearly partners described, “I recall the first fewmeetings we had. We said, ‘What direction dowe want to take this Partnership? Where do we

put our emphasis? Straight onstudents? In-service trainingof teachers? Administrativetraining? Who’s going to makethe changes that we want atthe school level and whoshould do it?’ So it wasconstant turmoil as to whereare we going to put the limitedresources that we have as faras us coming together.”

“The diversity ofpartners automaticallyleads to differingperspectives and views onthe problem, the agenda,the vision. But ratherthan pushing consensus,the partnership should …move toward coordinatedaction in the explicitabsence of agreement.”

23

Higher Education Center students share what they’ve learned about thecollege application process.

And yet, the Santa Ana Partnership shows anability to move beyond the inevitable conflicts toaction. As one researcher describes thephenomenon, “The diversity of partnersautomatically leads to differing perspectives andviews on the problem, the agenda, the vision.But rather than pushing consensus, thePartnership should … move toward coordinatedaction in the explicit absence of agreement.”Many partner members expressed a respect forthe leader’s initial willingness to take action andopenness to letting others move ahead withgood ideas. As one partner member said,“Whoever is willing to take charge is able tomove a lot.”

Risk taking is also seen in the willingness to trynew models of service delivery. Manyinnovative program models have emerged frombrainstorming sessions focused on addressingspecific pressing concerns. The PadresPromotores program — innovative in itscreation of parent leaders and parent-to-parentsupport — evolved to its present state out ofefforts to engage parents more fully in theeducation of their children. Likewise, the desireto more fully engage students in thecollaborative work resulted in the StudentAffiliates program. Similarly, lack of a convenientcentral “hub” for students to receive informationon college admission resulted in funding fourHigher Education Centers to serve all highschool students in Santa Ana.

None of these relatively innovative services wouldhave been developed without a collectivewillingness to “push the limits” and to risk failure.Project innovations are supported by Partnership

leaders, and several attempts are usually madeto “revive or revise” unsuccessful projects beforethey are abandoned as unproductive. Thus, theSanta Ana Partnership in many ways serves as a“laboratory of innovation” in the best ways toserve Santa Ana students and their families.

D. Flexibility for the PartnershipTo Evolve

A key factor in the longevity of the Partnershiphas been the flexibility for activities and for anunderlying structure to evolve over time. Therewas no “top-down” board mandate driving thecollaboration, but rather an urgent sense on thepart of the educational community thatsomething needed to change in Santa Ana.Research corroborates that when acollaborative effort begins with a focus on a

24

This Higher Education Center counselor helps a student wadethrough the vast paperwork necessary to attend college.

larger vision, rather than in response to a boardmandate, grant requirement, or funding stream,it is more likely to sustain itself. And, while thetop institutional leaders supported the work, linkswere first made between the on-the-groundpractitioners (faculty, principals, teachers) in thevaried institutions and then moved over timetoward institution-wide links that changedpolicies and practices.

One early example of this occurred over studentlanguage arts testing. Through the mid-1990s, alarge percentage of high school studentsentering Santa Ana College were routinelyfunneled into remedial English courses. Uponexamination, remediation was unnecessary forsome of these students, thus extending withoutdue cause the time to transfer eligibility by atleast a full year. Discussions between collegeand high school English teachers pinpointed theEnglish language placement exam as the keyissue: both sides were convinced that students’language skills were higher than their testresults. Through several years’ work thatinvolved university and college faculty,community college policymakers, and highschool teachers, a new placement process wasimplemented that more accurately measuredstudent skills. Today, the community collegestudents have a faster track to becomingeligible to transfer to the four-year university.This is one example of practitioners addressinga key educational barrier, which then resulted ininstitutional policy change implemented by high-level administrators and policymakers.

Flexibility in structure can also be seen in thechanging roster of partners. While the public

education institutions have served as theunchanging core, the constellation of otherpartners has evolved over the years. As oneschool district administrator described it, “If youtry to maintain a partnership in its original phaseand you don’t want to evolve with it, then itbecomes nonfunctional. But we bring people in.… People come into the partnership and peopleleave the partnership.” Over the years, the

25

Located in all fourcomprehensive high schoolsacross the Santa AnaUnified School District,Higher Education Centersprovide Santa Ana highschool students withimportant informationon pre-college courserequirements, entranceexams, financial aid andscholarship resources.Equally important, thesecenters welcome siblingsand parents, making itclear with multilingualprogram informationand expert staff thatLatino students can andshould go to college.

Santa Ana Partnership has included the City ofSanta Ana; the Santa Ana Chamber ofCommerce; community-based organizationssuch as Latino Health Access and DelhiCommunity Center; and others that have movedin and out of playing roles in Partnershipactivities.

In the Santa AnaPartnership, the twouniversities from the twodifferent Californiahigher education systemsand the community collegedo not compete forstudents. “I think werealized that with thegrowing number ofstudents in the region,basically there’s going to beenough folks foreverybody. … Wherever[the students] choose to goor wherever they’redirected, how can we servethem better across thelines?”— CSUF administrator

26

The governance structure, too, continues toevolve. While the Santa Ana Partnership leadershipteam, consisting primarily of lead partners, meetson an ongoing basis, other partner members cometo the table periodically around projectimplementation decisions, hiring decisions, grantwriting, and strategic planning retreats. Partnershipleaders serve as conduits back to their ownorganizations at the executive level, providingPartnership updates, issue briefings, andconsultation on critical priorities.

E. Noncompetitive Placement ofthe Partners

Finally, it has become clear that two linkedfactors in the stability of the Santa AnaPartnership are the manageable size of theSanta Ana educational system and, perhapsmore critically, that the lead institutions are not incompetition for students. Competition betweenorganizations can often serve as a majorobstacle in forming a partnership — “the effectsof protecting jobs, budgets, programs, facilities,‘turf’ and enrollment.”12 In the Santa AnaPartnership, the two universities from the twodifferent California higher education systems andthe community college do not compete forstudents. “I think we realized that with thegrowing number of students in the region,basically there’s going to be enough foreverybody. … Wherever [the students] choose togo or wherever they’re directed, how can weserve them better across the lines?” said aCSUF administrator. This situation has given theinstitutions the leeway to work collaborativelywith their partners and to “celebrate” studentenrollment increases for the community as awhole, with less concern for their own

institutional bottom-line. In recruitment, theinstitutions can deliver a uniform message thatstudents should pick the higher educationinstitution that suits them best.

Additionally, Santa Ana has the benefit of being amore “compact” urban community than manyothers that face similar educational challenges.Dr. John Nixon, a vice president at SAC,contrasted Santa Ana with Los Angeles: “In LosAngeles, you have a huge school district. Withthe city itself, you have nine communitycolleges, you have a giant UC [University ofCalifornia]. You have a large private university, acouple of CSUs [California State University]. It’smore difficult to manage and maintain focus inthat kind of setting.”11 Peel, et al., 2002.12 Rigsby, et al., 1995.

27

The Padres Promotores program has empoweredthese mothers to learn ways to help their children getinto college.

As described in the previous section, thetrust between partners and a willingness to

work through institutional barriers to seek new waysof working has enabled the Santa Ana Partnership tobuild a solid track record. The impact data isshowing incremental progress in studentachievement in Santa Ana. And partners say thatevery step of that incremental progress has been ahard-fought accomplishment taking years ofdedication and hard work. Yet the question remains:How can the Partnership move from incrementalprogress into transformational change that is felt bymore students in the Santa Ana educationalsystem? This section describes the areas ofmovement and growth in the Partnership, in whichthe members expressed their strongest hopes forreal and lasting change.

A. Moving Toward a Model ofParent, Student, and CommunityEmpowerment

“I think the road [to achieve] true parent andstudent leadership in a partnership is long. Idon’t think it’s something that you can just say‘let’s do it’ and … we will have these parents whocan lead our institutions.”

— ENLACE administrator

Beginning in the mid-1990s, the Partnershipbegan to focus more specifically on engagingparents and community members in Santa Anain educational reform. All of the schools anduniversities conduct some community outreachprograms. However, the model that is emergingin Santa Ana engages the community in adifferent way. It is reflected in one educationalresearcher’s description of an evolution from“parents as consumers of education” to parentsreflecting critically upon the education of theirchildren and then “taking action as citizens to

These Padres Promotores parents make plans on how to share what they havelearned with their communities.

28

V. Aspects of thePartnership ThatHave EvolvedOver the Years

make needed changes in their schools andcommunities.”13 Almost every intervieweeidentified the meaningful engagement of parentsand community organizations in the Partnershipas a turning point in the evolution of theeducational reform work.

1. The Role of Parents and StudentsOver the years, the Santa Ana Partnership hasemployed a variety of models of parentengagement. Orientation sessions are held forparents of freshman students at SAC, UCI, and

CSUF, as well as for parents during summerbridge programs. Family literacy centers buildparent skills in English. Focus groups with parentshave provided a formal means for incorporating theparent voice in Partnership work. Most recently,funded by the ENLACE grant, parents arespreading the word in the Santa Ana communityabout the opportunities available for the educationof children. Padres Promotores (“parentpromoters”) is a model of parent advocacy foreducation, built on the community healthpromoter approach. Latino Health Access, a

Assisting their children in preparing forcollege can be unfamiliar territory for manyparents. A unique program of the Santa AnaPartnership, Padres Promotores, linksHispanic parent leaders who have receivedspecial training in community advocacy andthe public higher education system withparents and schools throughout Santa Ana toprovide information, support, and training toother parents who are eager for their childrento attend college, but need information andresources to help them. These parents serveas mentors and volunteers, and are eager toshare what they have learned with otherparents. To date, a total of 94 people havegone through the training in Santa Ana,creating a living bridge between the schooland the community and linking parents withthe information they need to help theirchildren succeed.

Through this program, parent promotersliterally go door-to-door to inform familiesabout the area’s educational system. Thisinvolves offering families tips to help theirchildren perform better in school,

explaining how to obtain financial aid fortheir college-bound senior, and showingparents how they might complete their owneducation. Most importantly, the PadresPromotores are there to dispel the notionthat cultural differences and economicchallenges make higher education“impossible.” The strategy of the promotersis to provide this information to Latinoparents in their own language and in theirown home. Rosa Harrizon, one of theparent promoters, was inspired to guideother parents through the education mazewhen she learned how to guide her ownchildren through their school experience.

The parent promoters also work with theschool system to make sure the needs ofHispanic children are met. For instance,parent promoters attend school boardmeetings to talk about the challenges thattheir children face in school. One of theparent promoters described her work as“a powerful experience to tell my story,and to see that it could make adifference.”

Padres Promotores

29

nonprofit organization, works with an ENLACEcoordinator to teach Santa Ana parents (who aremostly Latino, bilingual Spanish speakers) aboutthe educational system in the United States andwhat they need to know to advocate for theirchildren’s success in school and into college.These parent leaders conduct home visits andtalks at community centers and schools to sharetheir knowledge with other parents. As one parentpromoter described it, “Learning how to help theirchildren succeed in school … means so muchmore from a fellow parent than an administrator.… At times, I would stay for hours because theyhad so many questions and concerns.” In lessthan two months, the Padres Promotores talkedwith more than 400 Santa Ana parents in theirhomes. The perspective they obtained onpersonal barriers to college is being fed back toinstitutions in the Santa Ana Partnership.

A team of “lead” Padres Promotores isemerging from the work. They represent aformal channel for engaging parents aspartners. As a coordinator of the parent work

described it, “You see very clearly that theparents join first because they want to learnmore about higher education for their kids, forthemselves. They’re like, ‘This could help meout.’ Then they move on to the second step,which is, ‘Wow, I can help out other people withthis; this is actually something I can take back.’And then there is the third step, which only afew people have made today … which is, ‘I cantake charge of this project.’” Recently, the leadPadres Promotores attended a school boardmeeting, talking with board members about thechallenges that their children face in school.One parent leader described it as “a powerfulexperience, to tell my story and see that it couldmake a difference.”

Student and youth leadership is another evolvingaspect of the Partnership. Through the ENLACEgrant, a student affiliates program wasdeveloped to provide a student voice topartnership activities. Consisting of two studentsfrom each of the three higher education partnerinstitutions, the student affiliates attend

Partnership meetingsand communicate backthe mission andactivities to their fellowstudents. In theirsecond year, theseyoung leaders areclarifying their role asthey try different waysto engage with thePartnership. Mostrecently, the studentaffiliates learned

First-day jitters: Excitement fills the air as a new group of parents from across thecommunity join the Padres Promotores program.

30

evaluation skills and conducted an in-depthevaluation of the Higher Education Centers,providing a student perspective that enhanced theformal evaluation of the high school-basedcenters.

2. The Role of Community-BasedOrganizations

“I think that as learning institutions, we openedour eyes and said, ‘You know what? Our kids areonly with us six hours a day. They’re out in theircommunities, you know, 12, 20 hours. They’reout there.’”

—Higher Education Center coordinator

Selected Community-Based PartnersMexican American Opportunity Foundation: This nonprofit organization was founded in1963 to develop and administer projects and programs on behalf of the socially andeconomically disadvantaged members of the community. It offers citizenship and ESLclasses; a 25-station computer lab; and WIC, preschool, and HeadStart services.

Latino Health Access: Founded in 1993, this nonprofit organization is a community leaderin health education and disease prevention. LHA offers free classes on asthmamanagement; diabetes and obesity prevention; and alcohol, drug, and domestic violenceprevention. Through the Santa Ana Partnership, LHA has taken its community healthpromoters model and applied it to form a Padres Promotores group for education.

Delhi Community Center: Founded in 1969, the Delhi Center offers health, education,economic development, and cultural arts services.

Hispanic Education Endowment Fund (HEEF): The Orange County EducationEndowment Fund provides scholarships for Orange County Hispanic students withfinancial needs at all levels along the educational continuum.

Reading Corners: This literacy project was founded by parent volunteer Luisa Ruiz in1999. It builds environments for reading and literacy development in housing complexesall around the Santa Ana area. The program currently encompasses eight differentlocations, all run by parent volunteers.

Libreria Martinez: This Hispanic-owned local bookstore focuses on supporting schoolliteracy and the Reading Corners program. The owner’s support for educationalexcellence and literacy in the Santa Ana community has encouraged support from otherlocal businesses and engaged local business owners in scholarship programs for SantaAna students.

31

academic programs, future teacher development,local early childhood issues, and community-based research. The school district is perhapsmost intimately connected to the communitythrough its 60,000 students, parent-teacheractivities, and after-school programs. As such,when the schools and higher educationinstitutions in the Santa Ana Partnership reachedout to the community, there was already arelationship there. CBOs were particularly criticalpartners, with their specific expertise in engagingparents, communicating directly withneighborhoods, and facilitating communityworkshops that complement the work of the leadinstitutional partners. Many of the Partnershipprograms could not occur without the CBOs’effort and commitment to the larger Partnershipvision.

As an example, the Partnership built upon thestrengths of Latino Health Access (LHA) tomanage and implement the Padres Promotoresactivities. Building on LHA’s experience inworkshops with Latino parents, SAC developedthe six-session basic training program.A new member of Padres Promotores graduates from

the Santa Ana training program.

The Santa Ana Partnership brings communitiestogether by enlisting the help and support of localbusinesses like Librería Martinez.

32

Over the last five years, the Santa AnaPartnership has intentionally intensified itsengagement with the broader community. In2000-2001, a community-wide effort took placein which almost 500 community members fromacross Santa Ana reviewed and discussed a“report card” on the educational achievement oflocal students. Recommendations from thosesmall group dialogues were brought into astrategic planning retreat which includedparents, students, community leaders, andinstitutional partners. In 2002, the first annualCamino de la Amistad (“Walk for Success”)brought the educational institutions out into thecommunity in a highly visible way. Volunteersand local community-based organizations werejoined by school administrators and principals tocanvass neighborhoods to talk about schoolregistration and to encourage residents to getinvolved in school reform.

These efforts have built upon, and moved beyond,the traditional educational outreach programsengaged by the lead public educational institutionsin Santa Ana. English as a Second Language(ESL) programs and citizenship centers havealways been a part of Santa Ana College. UCI andCSUF have connected to the community through

The Reading Corners project, supported by thePartnership, builds environments in housingcomplexes where children and parents can cometo read and learn literacy skills. With support andminimal funding from the Partnership, the ReadingCorners program has expanded exponentially tosupport early reading skills in Santa Ana’s children.Other CBOs and small businesses connect to thePartnership on a periodic basis to support particularacademic or cultural events.

To a lesser degree, the CBOs have been involvedin partnership governance processes such asplanning, hiring, and grant writing. However,through recent grants such as ENLACE, themovement is toward increasing the participationof CBOs in decision making and governance.Still, leaders say it has been a struggle over theyears to develop an effective role for the CBOs.As one UCI administrator put it, “Something Ihave learned is that it makes a lot more sense toalign projects with the [organizations’] strengths… to really focus on the strength of the CBO,why they were pulled in in the first place andreally try to make that work. … Once we identifiedeach CBO’s strength it’s become a lot better. So Ithink the trick is to pay attention to what they doanyway and build on that expertise.” Alignmentwith the mission of the CBO is another aspect ofsuccessfully incorporating CBO participation. Asa CBO partner described, “Letting the CBOdecide what role it wants to play [is critical],because when you come with a prescribedmodel and this is what they want you doing, thepartnership is then not going to work because it’snot in alignment with the CBO’s mission.”

Individual community leaders, student groups,parent groups, and CBOs appear to play adifferent role within the Partnership than theeducational institutions. Whether an elementaryschool or a university, the public educationalinstitutions share a common purpose and role:to educate students. Their organizationalagendas, publicly mandated responsibilities, andbureaucracies make them critical to educationalreform, but can also serve as constraints.Parents and other community constituencies, onthe other hand, described their role in thePartnership, broadly, as being change agents fortheir community.

As community members, they earn legitimacyfrom their life experience. As one SACadministrator put it, “I couldn’t have envisioned[the parent promoters’ work] like that. And it’sbecause [the parents] have their heart in theproject, they live in this community, they arepart of this community, they are this community,and they relate in that way to the community,which is something I couldn’t have created if Iwanted to.” Another important aspect of thecommunity role is as a touchstone of what isactually going on in Santa Ana. As Dr. RitaCepeda at SAC described, “It is as importantfor us to receive the guidance and advice fromstudents or a family member so we can correctmistakes. It’s very authentic, it’s real, it goesvery directly to what works and doesn’t work.”

One implication of the difference in role,however, appears to be that the parents andother community constituents are far lessinformed about what goes on in the SantaAna Partnership than the institutional partners.

33

Bringing in parents, CBOs, and communityleadership in as equal partners, yet maintainingand respecting their unique roles, is an immediateand key challenge for the Partnership.

B. Changing Expectations andAttitudes About Education

“A lot of the work we’ve done is to changepeople’s perceptions of the potential of students.”

—Robin Casselman at UCIA second area of movement supported by thecollaborative work in Santa Ana is a changingattitude about education. For many urban and

ethnic minority students, one of the most difficultbarriers to overcome is low academicexpectations. Early in their school career,minority students are often “tracked” intovocational programs and away from a highereducation track. By the time they get to highschool they are too far behind, both in terms ofacademic achievement and courserequirements, to get on the university track. Forexample, it is now well documented thatstudents who do not take algebra at thebeginning of high school cannot make up thisdisadvantage in time to attend a four-yearcollege directly after high school. Lacking thecommitment on the part of the schools toprepare students for advanced math, studentsfrom minority groups are unlikely to overcomethis hurdle to a college degree.

In Santa Ana, building the Partnership over manyyears involved changing attitudes and overcomingmany fears. For example, in addressing the lowpass rate of students at Santa Ana College, onecollege administrator remembered, “It wasn’t toomany years ago, the first question we would havebeen asked [by faculty] is: ‘Well, are you asking usto lower our standards?’ The first defense of poorstudent pass rates was: ‘Well, everyone will pass ifwe just lower our standards.’” The response ofpartner members has been to demonstrate tofaculty that by raising expectations for studentachievement and providing academic and othersupports the college can both strengthen academicstandards and maintain (or even increase) thenumber of students passing college courses.Underlying the challenge of working across aK-16 system are difficult attitudes andprejudices. One CSUF administrator

34

Hispanic students in the Santa Ana Partnership areempowered to express themselves, to celebrate theircultures, and to go after every chance to learn some-thing new.

speculated on some of those attitudes, suchas: “‘Why do we have to work with thecommunity college when they don’t know whatthey’re doing?’ or ‘Working with the high schoolis beneath us,’ or ‘Those people in the researchuniversities think they’re so much better thanwe are.’” A UCI administrator remembers thefeelings of mistrust between the university andthe K-12 school system. In recruiting studentsfor college, she recalls a sense on the part ofthe University that the high schools wereintentionally not telling students about theiroptions. Robin Casselman at UCI describedresistance in the early 1980s to the universityworking with the community college around thetransfer function: “a certain snobbery, you know,not to be interested as much in taking … a‘second-tier’ student.”

Partners talk about how these attitudes havechanged and improved over the years throughworking together. The Higher Education Centers,placed physically in the high schools, send out amessage that kids are expected to go on tocollege. Through the early collaborative work bythe university and public schools to improve mathteaching, a UCI administrator said, everyonecame to understand that “these kids really coulddo algebra. And it began to change perceptions.”Changing attitudes to create higher expectationsfor educational achievement may have thelongest lasting impact to support change.

C. Moving Toward a Culture ofPartnership Embedded in theEducational Institutions

Through the years, the set of pilot programs,joint professional development activities, andother partnership efforts is creating the kind ofsynergy that adds up to institutional change.Perhaps the most pointed example of this,mentioned in numerous interviews, is how areputation for “partnering” is attracting newinstitutional hires who already value working thatway. It is no longer a part of a job interview todescribe what “partnering” is about; the topapplicants for Partnership positions already havea sense of the power of the Partnership concept.

35

A parent coach holds up ENLACE informationalmaterials to help families learn how to put their childrenon the road to college.

Dr. Sara Lundquist talked about how “We’ve gotto keep educating folks who come in … and helpthem see the value of what the partnership hasbrought to us so that they hold it as important aswell.” Dr. Cepeda, president of SAC, is also oneof the newest executives at Santa Ana College.“Looking at what was happening in Santa Ana,with those types of collaborations, was one ofthe most important reasons for me to want totake this job,” she said. This shift can only serveto strengthen future activities and build on thefoundation for long-lasting change.

There are other signs that the institutions areincorporating partnership as a way of working.Newer grants are written jointly across institutions.As a school district administrator described, “It’snot like Santa Ana Unified School District … satdown and wrote this grant in isolation, hoping thatSanta Ana College would join us and hoping thatUCI would join us, and hoping that Cal StateFullerton would. We sat down and … we workedon the thing together for months.”

The institutional partners have also evolved intheir financial relationships to each other. Thecommitment and trust is such that theorganizations rotate fiscal and managerialresponsibility for different Partnership initiatives,according to content focus and budgetstructure. For example, Santa Ana College actsas the fiduciary agent and lead organization onthe ENLACE grant, making sure that reports arecompleted, administrative duties are taken careof, funds are allocated, and work is done. TwoU.S. Department of Education grants withoverlapping program periods are managed byUCI and the school district, with many othershared and blended mechanisms created todisburse and distribute resources. The rotatingarrangement has its challenges, includingnegotiating lead-agency status, especially onlarge projects. The partners also deal with thetricky balance engendered by the constantlyshifting accountability, responsibility, andauthorities across a variety of core institutionalprojects and special initiatives.

Yet partners mention both the large and smallpayoffs that keep the collaborative work going.Seniors in September is a Saturday program forhigh school students and their parents to discussapplication to college and college choices. “Eachpartner takes turns paying for the food and thepublications. One year it’s Santa Ana and thenit’s Fullerton, then it’s Irvine, then it’s Santa AnaUnified [School District]. … It’s so institutionalizedand they’re so regularly scheduled that they havebecome part of the order of business in the highschools and our staff shows up and helps run itand it’s completely integrated,” said a Santa AnaCollege partner.

36

How did you do that? In this math class at WillardMiddle School, a student explains a math problem.

D. Moving From Programsto Policy

Over the last five years, the Santa AnaPartnership has been making a criticalmovement toward scaling up programs andapproaches that have proved effective. Thefocus has moved from pilot-testing individualprograms, which generally reach a smallnumber of students, to institutionalizing abroader set of linked strategies to reachhundreds and thousands of students each year.The ENLACE grant has specifically supportedinstitutional policies and practices that can help“scale up” a strategy that works. As an exampleof this evolution, the Freshman ExperienceProgram, run by Santa Ana College, has gonefrom a program that touched six cohorts ofstudents a year to 17, to a total of 650 students asemester. Irene Malmgren, dean of counseling atSanta Ana College, said, “[We] took some of thestrengths [of the Puente program and SSTI],what we could replicate, and we expanded it.”The administrators, teachers, and counselorsthat staff FEP are intentionally internal to theinstitutions. Data from seven years of theprogram showed that students not only pass athigher rates, but also stay in school at higherrates. An informal analysis of cost showed thatthe program essentially pays for itself halfwaythrough the second semester based on theadded revenue from the freshmen whootherwise would have dropped out. Still, allacademic support programs, even ones withevidence of effectiveness, go through hard timesand upfront budgeting for teachers andcounselors continues to be an issue.

Scaling up impact through policy changes is acore strategy for the Partnership. Under theauspices of GEAR UP, higher-level mathematics,a key barrier to college eligibility, was addressedthrough policy reform. SAUSD adoptedcurriculum reforms designed to increase thenumbers of Latino high school students eligiblefor admission to California’s higher educationsystem. In 1999, seventh grade students at twomiddle schools piloted a pre-algebra course

37

Dual TransferAgreements

The Santa Ana Partnership offers twoprograms that help Hispanic studentsget accepted to college. The first, U-LINK, is an innovative programallowing Santa Ana high schoolstudents to attend Santa Ana Collegewith guaranteed admission to theUniversity of California, Irvine. Toattend UCI, students at Santa AnaCollege must complete all requiredcourses with a grade point average of2.75, among other requirements. Theother program, 4 California StateUniversity Priority Admissions Channelfor Transfers (4CSU PACT), allowscommunity college students in SantaAna to obtain a “pre-admitted” status atCalifornia State University, Fullerton.

Of the first U-LINK cohort, 33 percenthave successfully transferred and 57percent are continuing to makeprogress toward transfer. Newerstudents are completing core transfercourse requirements at a record rate.

sequence. Later, policy advocacy led to district-wide adoption of the course sequence for allstudents attending SAUSD’s nine middle schools.However, adopting the policy was only the firststep in changing the expectations surroundingmath achievement. In 2002, UCI received aNational Science Foundation grant to improveteachers’ instructional skills so they can effectivelyteach college-preparatory math and sciencecourses to students with a broad range of mathaptitudes. UCI provided the math-specificprofessional development to SAUSD teachers atthe primary and secondary levels, withcommunity college math faculty engaged as well.The students needed extra support to succeed inthe Algebra courses. This was provided throughcollege tutors, a Saturday Academy in Math, andother school site initiatives.

Already the policy has had an impact onthousands of students throughout the schooldistrict. The number of students enrolling inAlgebra at the high schools has increaseddramatically; five times more high schoolstudents are enrolled in Algebra courses nowthan just four years ago. Initial findings from 2002to 2003 indicated that the percentage of students

38

obtaining a passing grade in Algebra increasedfrom 45 to 56, an impressive gain given thebroader enrollment in math courses. Withcollege-preparatory math skills available,successive groups of middle school studentsshould have greater eligibility for, and enrollmentin, college.

Just recently, SAUSD adopted one of the mostrigorous high school graduation requirements inthe state of California, one that corresponds withcourse requirements for admission to theUniversity of California (UC) and California StateUniversity (CSU) systems. Effective with thegraduating class of 2005, students who graduatefrom SAUSD high schools will have met thecourse requirements for both the UC and CSUsystems — systems that enroll the largestnumber of college students in the state.

These curricular reforms, supported by all of theelements needed to make it successful,including teacher professional development andstudent academic supports, build upon thehistory of collaboration of the partners.

Picture this: Students proudly display their artwork, which is based on books they haveread at one of Santa Ana’s “Reading Corners.”

13 Giles, 1998.

Despite the successes engendered by thePartnership for the students of Santa Ana,

partnership leaders agree that there is a longway to go to reach the goal of access to andsuccess in higher education for all Santa Anastudents. While educational and communitypartners are quick to celebrate even the smallsuccesses, they are also realistic and soberabout how to move forward. Sustainability,especially in a time of state and institutionalfiscal crises, is on everyone’s mind. Yet, theissue is framed less in terms of “if,” and more interms of “how and when.” “How do we continueto expand what’s working?” “How do we keep theinstitutional connections to community vital?”“How do we keep pushing on the policy front?”The idea of the Partnership being around in thefuture was not seen as a question. Expressing acommon sentiment, Dr. Cepeda said, “I thinkthat through the innovation and contact, the zealof the partners, we’ll find resources wherever tokeep it going. And that is, I think, a given.” In fact,many interviewees saw the Partnership as asupport to weather resource hardships, ratherthan as a drain on dwindling resources. Oneimportant support for sustainability is that theinstitutions have identified many deep andcommon purposes that are becoming ingrainedinto their organizational structures.

The partner members pinned their strongesthopes for future change on two complementaryareas: increasing the academic gains that arebeing realized through scaling up change; and

continuing to mobilize the community, parents,and young people — the groups with thegreatest stake in seeing the educational systemtransformed. The powerful work of the PadresPromotores in reaching neighborhoods andfamilies in Santa Ana reinforces the fundamentalrole that parents and students must play. Withthe comfort and confidence that have developedover years of working together, the new rolesemerging for parents and community members,and the Partnership’s commitment to impactpolicies that support student academicachievement, Santa Ana Partnership membersbelieve that they are well positioned to maintaingrowth for years to come. Recent and steadyincreases in achievement scores indicate thatthe movement forward has begun. The commonvision and hard work of partnering may wellprovide the fuel to sustain this forwardmomentum, expanding educationalopportunities for all Santa Ana students.

39

VI. Future of thePartnership

Appendix:Santa Ana PartnershipBlueprint for Change

40

41

42

43

44

Bibliography

Azinger, A. (2000). A K-12 perspective onpartnerships with community colleges. NewDirections for Community Colleges. 111, 17-22.

Barnett, B., et al. (1999). A typology ofpartnerships for promoting innovation. Journal ofSchool Leadership. 9, 484-509.

Boswell, K. (2000). Building bridges or barriers:Public policies that facilitate or impede linkagesbetween community colleges and local schooldistricts. New Directions for CommunityColleges. 111, 3-16.

Bradshaw, L. (1997). Boundary spanning andcommunication patterns in interagencypartnerships. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Evaluation Association.20p.

Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: Astructural analysis of individual influence in anorganization. Administrative Science Quarterly.29, 519-539.

Brookhart, S. & Loadman, W. (1990). School-university collaboration: Different workplacecultures. Contemporary Education. 61:3,125-128.

Cunningham, C. (2002). Engaging thecommunity to support student achievement.ERIC Digest.

Cunningham, C. & Wagonlander, C. (2000).Establishing and sustaining a middle collegehigh school. New Directions for CommunityColleges. 111, 41-52.

Druckman, R. et al. (2002). Partnerships with K-12 education. New Directions for HigherEducation. 120, 11-18.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/communitypartnerships. Phi Delta Kappa. 76:9, 701-713.

Fenske, R. H. et al. (1997). Early interventionprograms: Opening the door to highereducation. ERIC Digest.

Ferguson, M. V. (Ed.). (2001). Partnerships2000: A decade of growth and change.National Association of Partners in Education.

Fountain, C. & Wood, J. (2000). Florida earlyliteracy and learning model: A systematicapproach to improve learning at all levels.Peabody Journal of Education. 75:3, 85-98.

Giles, H. C. (1998). Parent engagement as aschool reform strategy. ERIC Clearinghouse onUrban Education. 135, 6-12.

Gomez, M. N. (1990). To advance learning: Ahandbook on developing K12 post secondarypartnerships. Irvine, CA: University Press ofAmerica.

Greene, P. & Tichenor, M. (1999). Partnershipson a collaborative continuum. ContemporaryEducation. 70:4, 13-19.

Haire, C. & Dodson-Pennington, L. S. (2002).Taking the road less traveled: A journey incollaborative resource development.Community College Journal of Research andPractice. 26, 61-75.

Kuo, E. W. (1999). Creating beneficialinstitutional collaborations. ERIC Digest.

Kussrow, P. G. (1995). Why community collegesneed organizational partnerships. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the NationalCouncil of Professors of EducationalAdministration. (56th, Burlington, VT, August 5-10, 2002.)

Lundquist, S. & Nixon, J. S. (1998). Thepartnership paradigm: Collaboration and thecommunity college. New Directions forCommunity Colleges. 103, 43-49.

45

Lunenburg, F. C. & Irby, B.J. (2002, August).Parent involvement: A key to studentachievement. Paper presented at the 56thannual meeting of the National Council ofProfessors of Educational Administration,Burlington, VT.

Martin, S. A. (1999). Early intervention programand college partnerships. ERIC Digest.

New relationships with schools: Organizationsthat build community by connecting withschools. (2003). Collaborative CommunicationsGroup.

Peel, H. et al. (2002). School/universitypartnerships: A viable model. The InternationalJournal of Educational Management. 16:7.

Rigsby, et al. (1995). School-communityconnections: Exploring issues for research andpractice. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.

Spangler, M. (2002). Concluding observations onsuccessful partnerships. New directions forcommunity colleges. 119, 77-80.

Stevens, D. (1999). The ideal, real and surrealin school-university partnerships: Reflections ofa boundary spanner. Teaching and TeacherEducation. 15, 287-299.

Tyler, J. & Haberman, M. (2002). Education-community partnerships: Who uses whom forwhat purposes? Metropolitan UniversitiesJournal. 13:4, 88-100.

Vos, R. (2002). Collaborating to close theachievement gap. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education. (54th, New York,NY, Feb. 23-26, 2002.)

One Michigan Avenue EastBattle Creek, MI

USA49017-4058

Phone (269) 968-1611Fax (269) 968-0413

www.wkkf.org/ENLACE

YO/ED 4259Item # 413

0904.15M.VAN