The new Project on Education is a collaborative action research project to examine and make a case for the roles and results of community organizing in reforming schools, improving student achievement, and revitalizing communities. We used collaborative inquiry processes to bring parents, community members, educators and students together to examine and reflect on their efforts and has conducted both local and national studies on parent and community participation in school reform.

The audiences for the project include funders and educators, as well as community organizing groups themselves. The project asks what indicates success in education organizing and how is it measured. It also asks what support need to do the work well.

A set of beliefs shapes the direction of this research effort. The data that is collected is meant to make visible and credible the basis of those beliefs to the funding community and to educators. Overall, the project is grounded in the belief that parents and other community members' participation in school reform is critical to change schools and to sustain reform.

Another belief is that education organizing contributes to making communities stronger through its dual emphasis on strengthening public institutions and building public leadership. The engagement of parents and community members in school reform requires that the walls between schools and the world outside become more flexible and porous. An assumption is that permeable boundaries ultimately benefit both students and communities. Parents and educators become directly accountable to each other for children's success in school. When schools value what parents bring, teachers can better engage students in their work.

Community organizing challenges the traditional separation of school, family and community domains. Another benefit is that community organizing redresses social, economic and political inequities with the goal of supporting the educational achievement of all children.

It also serves as a catalyst for reform, reinforcing and sustaining school improvement through active connections between schools and the outside community. Through the processes of community organizing, parents and community members gain skills and power and build networks that strengthen their neighborhoods and their participation in schools. The depth of such reform should be measured, in part, by the extent teachers, administrators, and community leadership work together and sustain dialogue and effective reform activity.

In seeking to identify indicators of success of community organizing, this project documents the work of these groups and identifies evidence that their efforts are making a difference. In looking for indicators, we ask what measures of success are credible to what audiences? Two related questions are what kinds of , staffing and other resources are needed; and, what are the indicators of organizing capacity necessary to carry out this work?

This report is based on data from a telephone survey, the second phase of data collection in this project. Prior to selecting sites for the telephone interview, we carried out an inventory of groups doing community organizing around education issues and found over 162 groups doing such work. Out of those groups, we chose to interview by telephone a sample of nineteen, representing variation in terms of key characteristics. We chose five sites from among the telephone interview sample for intensive case studies, and analysis of data from the first round of visits will be presented in a forthcoming report.

The telephone interviews were conducted with executive directors and/or lead organizers of the sample groups. The interview data provide an opportunity to identify the range and breadth of the work going on in the field and a first step in developing indicators and measures of the difference the work of these groups make. Our understanding of the work and of indicators and measures will continue to develop through the five case studies.

The questions asked in the telephone interviews fell into five categories: 1) the issues the groups address and how the issues are determined; 2) the variety of strategies the groups employ for addressing the issues; 3) the support the groups need to carry out their work; 4) what the groups have accomplished and how they measure their success; and 5) the challenges and barriers the groups face. We conducted the interview questions with two groups, slightly revising the survey for the remainder of interviews.

In two sections of this report - the description of the groups and the presentation of indicators - we represent our data and analysis with introductory narrative. Part II describes the sample of telephone interview groups through a series of key variables. Part III presents an inductive analysis of indicators, strategies, data sources and measures derived from the telephone interview data. Part IV presents the major needs the groups. It lays out a beginning framework of indicators of success. Part V offers a brief summation of the major findings.

Part II: Description of Community Organizing Groups

As noted above, the nineteen groups selected for the telephone interview sample came from a database of community organizing groups working on school reform nationwide. The groups are active in urban and rural neighborhoods and areas with a concentration of low-income, often racially, ethnically and linguistically minority families; the schools these populations attend are frequently under-performing schools. The groups use social processes of relationship building among parents and community members in order to identify shared concerns about children's schooling and take collective action that challenges inequity. Their purpose is to develop a powerful membership base and develop local leadership that can leverage change to improve children's school experience. The relationship building promoted by community organizing, both within and across communities, schools and school districts is geared toward transformation at individual, community and institutional levels.

The database is not comprehensive of all groups that share these features and ways of working, but is a work in progress. We located the groups through lists provided by funders, organizing networks and personal referrals, Internet and website searches and references in journals and articles. The data on each group was crosschecked directly with the group. In making the selections, we aimed to create a sample that was well distributed regionally and included several rural groups. The target constituencies or membership of the sample groups were to represent racially, ethnically and linguistically diverse populations. The interview groups were also intended to represent the major community organizing traditions.

The groups are distributed across every major U.S. region and include groups in both urban and rural locales. The major community organizing networks are represented as well as independent groups. Two groups have significant connections. Notably, the interview sample includes a significant number of "mature" groups: Forty-two per cent have been doing community organizing for more than 11 years. Members or constituents of the groups are residents of low-income neighborhoods or areas and include African American, Caribbean, Chicano, Latino, Asian American and white populations. Seventy-four per cent are multi-issue groups. The majority began organizing around other community issues, e.g. affordable housing, homelessness, drugs, and living wage, before engaging with education issues. They reported, however, that they turned to education issues at the insistence of their members, who were concerned about their children's lack of success in school. A common perception among the groups is that education is the most difficult arena in which to organize for change. Several respondents suggested that the difficulty stems from the mystique of educators' specialized knowledge. This mystique works to reduce the confidence of community members and parents in their own knowledge and their legitimacy to critique the institution.

With only slight exception, both staffing and funding levels of the groups are relatively small. All but two groups have less than nine on staff including executive directors, grant writers, office support staff and organizers; a typical community organizing group has 2-5 organizers. Forty-seven per cent operate on annual budgets of less than $250,000. Consideration of indicators of success needs to take into account both staffing and budget levels of these groups and what can realistically be accomplished by such small-scale efforts.

Part III: Indicators of the Contribution of Community Organizing to School Reform

The telephone survey data provide the foundation for a framework on "indicators" of the success of community organizing for school reform. It is in these indicator areas that community organizing groups make their particular contributions to school reform. We drew on a number of conversations and readings about developing and using indicators to help organize our information in the format presented here.

Work on indicators is evolving in a variety of domains, particularly in examining neighborhood and education quality and child wellbeing. The neighborhood indicators project specifies several "benchmark" areas of neighborhood quality, and then asks – what measures exist that would provide a way to judge progress in each benchmark area? Here we identify indicator areas associated with the end goals of community organizing for school reform - improved student learning and strengthened neighborhoods and communities. As several of the people we interviewed told us, these two goals are inextricably linked – good schools contribute to strong communities and strong communities support schools to succeed as institutions. Through our analysis, we identified eight indicator areas in which the work of community organizing groups falls - all areas, which have been associated with the improvement of children's learning and/or strengthened neighborhoods. Some of these areas are familiar in school reform, but we did not pick them abstractly. These indicator areas best characterize the set of strategies and outcomes the groups in our sample use to judge their own progress towards meeting the goals of improving student outcomes and strengthening communities. The indicator areas are:

1) Equity
2) Accountability to parents and community
3) Positive school climate
4) High quality instruction and curriculum
5) Social capital
6) Tight-knit community school relations
7) Community power
8) High Capacity Organizations

Some of these indicator areas are directly associated in the research literature and in practice with improving student learning, such as high-quality instruction and positive school climate. Others are more directly associated with building strong neighborhoods and communities - such as building local leadership and power and developing high-capacity organizations. There are also some indicator areas that contribute to both student learning and strong neighborhoods and communities directly - equity, social capital, and tight-knit school-community relations, and accountability to parents and community.

Several of these indicator areas are not uniquely the domain of community organizing, but also are on the agendas of state and district level educators and other non-profit organizations. Even where there is overlap, however, community organizing adds a critical dimension. For example, state or district-initiated reform efforts may also aim for improved school climate and instruction, but community organizing efforts customize, support, and add momentum. States and districts may consider equity among their goals, but community organizing contributes persistence in pursuing equity, as well as political momentum. Other indicator areas are more uniquely the focus of community organizing, including social capital, leadership and power, and accountability to parents and community.

While the strategies themselves come from the interviews, the data sources and measures listed do not strictly come from the interview data. We draw on our own and logic to suggest both how to measure success within the indicator areas and where data might exist. In addition, we should note that groups are at different places developmentally as far as their education work and there is no absolute standard that we can draw or that we mean to imply. The measures have to be considered in light of the number of years a group has been in existence, the size of its staff, and the scale and scope of the group's work. Defining standards offers another opportunity for participation of the case study groups, as well as the advisory group.

Representing the indicators areas schematically runs the risk of oversimplification of social processes and dynamics. These areas are not discreet, linear, or sequential; in practice, they are overlapping and interactive.

Indicator Area 1: Equity

A common focus of community organizing is addressing the uneven distribution of resources, often a result of long-standing economic and racial segregation. Community organizing groups have documented disparities and seek parity for minority and low-income communities, in terms of funding, staffing, facilities, and program quality.

STRATEGIES

Gaining funding for:
- after school programs, i.e. recreational programs, homework clubs, academic learning centers
- adult education programs, i.e. GED classes, ESL classes
- community annexes and/or parent resource rooms
- renovations and/or new facilities, e.g. playscapes, clean bathrooms
- increased safety measures, i.e. new lighting, additional crossing guards, stop signs, rerouting traffic
- parent participation in classrooms, i.e. paid mentor program
- new schools, small schools, alternative schools, charter schools

Forming partnerships to bring services and expertise into schools:
- post-secondary education institutions that provide adult education classes
- legal aid groups that bring court action, e.g. to limit corporal punishment, to ensure bilingual education programs
- university programs designed to attract minority teachers for urban schools
- school reform groups to bring new ideas/pedagogy into schools, e.g. small schools, placed based curriculum

Invoking new policies to: - curtail the assignment to low-income schools of substitutes, uncredentialed teachers and teachers not teaching in their subject area/at their grade level - reduce class size - eliminate overcrowding - bring minority teachers into urban districts

DATA SOURCES
- school/district policies and budgets, e.g.,

- classroom assignments
- teaching assignments
- grant budgets
- interviews and/or survey of students, parents, administrators and teachers: numbers served, persistence in program, perceptions on effect on homework completion, on making school safe and secure; incidents of problems before and after school
- survey # and nature of school improvements and/or safety measures
- survey # of new schools
- survey # and nature of partnerships
- school district data on classroom size
- survey of distribution of credentialed teachers

MEASURES
- new funds flowing into schools
- #s of adults graduating from GED classes
- increase in parent and teacher perception of homework completion
- # and range of new and/or renovated facilities
- reduced # of traffic accidents, gang incidents, fights in school area
- increased perception of safety in the school area
- equity in distribution of credentialed teachers
- reduction and equity in class size
- reduction and equity in overcrowding
- equity in distribution of funds
- equity in suspensions/expulsions across schools in a district

- availability of courses, 8th grade , languages
- equity efforts are sustained over time

Indicator Area 2: Accountability to Parents and Community

In the current era, accountability is enforced through top down means, from state and city officials through high stakes testing and school (and sometimes student) sanctions and rewards. Community organizing adds a critical dimension to accountability. By making schools responsive to students, parents, and community members - the public they serve, community organizing both broadens the measures and strengthens support for change.

STRATEGIES

Parent and community participating in decision making, e.g.,
- participation in hiring and firing of principals or regional superintendents
- oversight of school budgets Monitoring programs, policies and children's progress, e.g.,
- citizen review boards, community oversight committees
- parent notification programs, i.e. early warning notices
- "honesty" sessions with teachers, principals and parents around grades and standardized test scores

DATA SOURCES
- school/district policies
- observations of meetings
- interviews with parents, community members, school personnel
- minutes and attendance records of meetings

MEASURES
- institutionalized role of parents in key decision-making bodies in district
- expanded parent perception of roles in the school, i.e.,mentors, committee members
- parents included in
- parents knowledgeable about student/school progress
- increased sense of ownership of local schools by parents and community
- teachers and administrators perceive parents as partners in children's education
- meetings focus on programs, policies, children's progress
- parent satisfaction with administrative staff and policies
- representation of community organizing group members on panels, oversight committees, etc.

- Parents see and act on school data
- Strong voter turnout for governing board elections

Indicator Area 3: Positive School Climate

Many of the issues community members identify as important are concrete features of the school environment that affect students' and parents' sense of order and safety. These school climate factors determine how comfortable people feel in the school, that is, whether the school is welcoming and open. Facing them often challenges the school to rethink its role in a community.

STRATEGIES
- Parents participating in
- school discipline policy
- classroom mentoring programs, etc.
- Improving safety in and around the school
- additional police and parent patrols
- improved lighting
- improved traffic routes, stop lights and stop signs
- order on buses
- Improving facilities
- Establishing dress code

DATA SOURCES
- survey: perceptions of increased safety measures
- interviews
- observation
- school district budget and policies
- neighborhood crime statistics
- school/district discipline records
- accident reports

MEASURES
- Increased parent, community, student pride in neighborhood schools
- Youth participating in peer mediation
- Reduced # of