Page 48 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 48 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
39
language rather than effectively communicating the desired end result of the project.
Baum also notes the difference between personal partnerships and organizational
partnerships; whereas personal partnerships are informal and guided by a basic set of
assumptions (i.e. loyalty, personal feelings), organizational partnerships are formal
and developed as a result of planning and deliberation. Thus, the human
relationships and emotions associated with personal partnerships do not necessarily
characterize organizational partnerships; in fact, the same principles and assumptions
as personal partnerships cannot guide or sustain organizational partnerships.
The organizational partnership operates under the rationale that an “entity can
better serve its interests by pooling resources with another that has common
interests” (p. 235); thus, each party must mutually benefit from this alliance in order
for it to flourish. Kanter (1994) expands on this notion by stating that there are eight
“I’s” that need to be developed before a partnership can become a “We”: individual
excellence, importance, interdependence, investment, information, integration,
institutionalization, and integrity. The concepts proposed by Baum (2000), Epstein
(2006), Kezar (2007), Miller and Hafner (2008) and Leiderman et al. (2002) in some
ways mirror Kanter’s set of basic concepts to guide organizational partnerships (see
Table 2.1).
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 48 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 39 language rather than effectively communicating the desired end result of the project. Baum also notes the difference between personal partnerships and organizational partnerships; whereas personal partnerships are informal and guided by a basic set of assumptions (i.e. loyalty, personal feelings), organizational partnerships are formal and developed as a result of planning and deliberation. Thus, the human relationships and emotions associated with personal partnerships do not necessarily characterize organizational partnerships; in fact, the same principles and assumptions as personal partnerships cannot guide or sustain organizational partnerships. The organizational partnership operates under the rationale that an “entity can better serve its interests by pooling resources with another that has common interests” (p. 235); thus, each party must mutually benefit from this alliance in order for it to flourish. Kanter (1994) expands on this notion by stating that there are eight “I’s” that need to be developed before a partnership can become a “We”: individual excellence, importance, interdependence, investment, information, integration, institutionalization, and integrity. The concepts proposed by Baum (2000), Epstein (2006), Kezar (2007), Miller and Hafner (2008) and Leiderman et al. (2002) in some ways mirror Kanter’s set of basic concepts to guide organizational partnerships (see Table 2.1). |
