Page 15 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 15 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
6
performing students. Although there are several forms of educational partnerships,
the community-school-university partnership is becoming popular within the urban
setting because it offers key participants an opportunity to share their different forms
of capital (Leiderman et al., 2002). Another attribute of community-school-university
educational partnerships is that it positions urban school stakeholders to
collaborate with one another to redefine the concept of schooling in the urban setting
(Kezar, 2007; Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Epstein, 1996). However, it is important to
note that it is possible to reproduce parental isolation by maintaining hierarchal
structures, neglecting to embrace the different cultures represented, and failing to
define new roles for groups in the partnership; thus it is necessary to ensure that all
members of the partnership are involved in the co-construction process and that the
organization’s goals are met (Leiderman et al., 2002; Sanders, 2008; Martinez-Cosio,
2010; Myers, 1996; Kirschner, 1996).
Within the co-construction process, there is a need for dialogue (Freire,
1970), in which each participant is given a specific role and valued as an equal
partner that has its own capital to contribute to the partnership. In that instance, local
stakeholders are able to discuss students’ needs and the best educational pedagogy to
use in order to procure academic achievement (Davis, 1996). However, parents may
feel hesitant to participate in this dialogue after years of being placed at the bottom
of the hierarchal education reform structure.
Object Description
| Title | Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two |
| Author | Woodyard, Savina M. |
| Author email | SavinaW@aol.com; savinaw@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-22 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-19 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Rousseau, Sylvia G. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Stowe, Kathy Huisong Marsh, David D. |
| Abstract | Community-school-university partnerships represent a new model of urban education reform that incorporates the overlapping spheres of influence in the transformation process. Co-constructed relationships between communities, schools and universities have the potential reshape organizational hierarchy and enable all partners to develop a new cultural model capable of transforming K-12 urban schools. This study the second and third year of one co-constructed community-school-university partnership that attempted to transform the cultural model of one urban high school.; The aim of this study is to identify and analyze the extent to which a community-school-university partnership is able to sustain elements of co-construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to the partnership. Also, the study will identify the persistent barriers to co-constructions and effective strategies to overcome those barriers within a community-school-university partnership. This study expands on the research conducted during the first year of the partnership’s operation and will offer insight as to the sustainability of the co-constructed processes between the community-school-university partnership. This study will also identify the methods in which the community-school-university partnership can develop a new cultural model for parental engagement in the interest of school transformation. |
| Keyword | partnership; co-construction; urban school; transformation; parental engagement |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 2000/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3759 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Woodyard, Savina M. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Woodyard-4509 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume62/etd-Woodyard-4509.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 15 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 6 performing students. Although there are several forms of educational partnerships, the community-school-university partnership is becoming popular within the urban setting because it offers key participants an opportunity to share their different forms of capital (Leiderman et al., 2002). Another attribute of community-school-university educational partnerships is that it positions urban school stakeholders to collaborate with one another to redefine the concept of schooling in the urban setting (Kezar, 2007; Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Epstein, 1996). However, it is important to note that it is possible to reproduce parental isolation by maintaining hierarchal structures, neglecting to embrace the different cultures represented, and failing to define new roles for groups in the partnership; thus it is necessary to ensure that all members of the partnership are involved in the co-construction process and that the organization’s goals are met (Leiderman et al., 2002; Sanders, 2008; Martinez-Cosio, 2010; Myers, 1996; Kirschner, 1996). Within the co-construction process, there is a need for dialogue (Freire, 1970), in which each participant is given a specific role and valued as an equal partner that has its own capital to contribute to the partnership. In that instance, local stakeholders are able to discuss students’ needs and the best educational pedagogy to use in order to procure academic achievement (Davis, 1996). However, parents may feel hesitant to participate in this dialogue after years of being placed at the bottom of the hierarchal education reform structure. |
