Page 18 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 18 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
9
in Education, elucidated that American students were underperforming as compared
to students in the global market, specifically within the areas of math and science.
There was no longer a centralized attention on students affected by poverty; instead,
the entire education system needed to be reconstructed in order to be competitive in a
global market. The “A Nation At Risk” also framed educational reform as both a
private and public good, meaning that it could be an asset to an individual as well as
their community in regards to employment and economic mobility. According to
Hochschild and Scovronick (2003), this ignited a need for education policy makers
to sharpen their focus on academic standards and accountability. As a direct
response, colleges and universities began to increase their admissions requirements;
both secondary and post secondary education institutions began to use standardized
assessments as a measurement tool to determine student preparedness for college,
identify remedial needs, categorize advanced student and assist teachers in tracking
student progress over time (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). However, these new
emphases in education did not significantly benefit African American and Latino
students (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Barton & Coley, 2009). According to Wenglinsky
(2004) institutional practices that were accelerated at this time, such as tracking and
remediation, can have a detrimental impact on student academic performance,
specifically African American and Latino students, who were being isolated from
challenging curriculum.
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 18 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 9 in Education, elucidated that American students were underperforming as compared to students in the global market, specifically within the areas of math and science. There was no longer a centralized attention on students affected by poverty; instead, the entire education system needed to be reconstructed in order to be competitive in a global market. The “A Nation At Risk” also framed educational reform as both a private and public good, meaning that it could be an asset to an individual as well as their community in regards to employment and economic mobility. According to Hochschild and Scovronick (2003), this ignited a need for education policy makers to sharpen their focus on academic standards and accountability. As a direct response, colleges and universities began to increase their admissions requirements; both secondary and post secondary education institutions began to use standardized assessments as a measurement tool to determine student preparedness for college, identify remedial needs, categorize advanced student and assist teachers in tracking student progress over time (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). However, these new emphases in education did not significantly benefit African American and Latino students (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Barton & Coley, 2009). According to Wenglinsky (2004) institutional practices that were accelerated at this time, such as tracking and remediation, can have a detrimental impact on student academic performance, specifically African American and Latino students, who were being isolated from challenging curriculum. |
