Page 57 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 57 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
48
Table 2.2: Deconstructing Epstein’s Types of Involvement
Involvement Type Definition
Parenting Helping all families to understand child and adolescent
development and to establish home environments that support
children as students
Communicating Designing and conducting effective two-way communications
about school programs and children’s progress
Volunteering Recruiting and organizing help and support for school programs
and student activities
Learning at home Providing information and ideas to families about how to help
students at home with homework and curricular related decisions
and activities
Decision-making Including parents in school decisions and developing parent leaders
Collaborating with
the community
Identifying and integrating resources and services from the
community to strengthen and support schools, students and their
families
Epstein’s model for different forms of involvement connects directly to
Dewey’s framework regarding the creation of a “revitalized public.” Dewey
emphasizes the need for the public to be inquisitive and consistently evaluate
programs, policies and organizations to measure their effectiveness as it applies to
the public’s well-being. Within the educational partnership, Epstein proposes
actions similar to Dewey’s principles with regards to communication, decision-making
and collaborating with the community (see Table 2.3).
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 57 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 48 Table 2.2: Deconstructing Epstein’s Types of Involvement Involvement Type Definition Parenting Helping all families to understand child and adolescent development and to establish home environments that support children as students Communicating Designing and conducting effective two-way communications about school programs and children’s progress Volunteering Recruiting and organizing help and support for school programs and student activities Learning at home Providing information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and curricular related decisions and activities Decision-making Including parents in school decisions and developing parent leaders Collaborating with the community Identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen and support schools, students and their families Epstein’s model for different forms of involvement connects directly to Dewey’s framework regarding the creation of a “revitalized public.” Dewey emphasizes the need for the public to be inquisitive and consistently evaluate programs, policies and organizations to measure their effectiveness as it applies to the public’s well-being. Within the educational partnership, Epstein proposes actions similar to Dewey’s principles with regards to communication, decision-making and collaborating with the community (see Table 2.3). |
