Page 62 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 62 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
53
process of school reform. Furthermore, co-construction mandates that all
stakeholders adopt a culture that discards hierarchal relationships and embraces
everyone as peers. Within the realm of the community-school-university
partnership, it is necessary for each stakeholder to participate in the co-construction
process. However, the stakeholders involved in the partnership may present threat to
the co-constructive process (Leiderman et al., 2002). This process of co-constructions
requires schools and universities to adopt a new cultural model in their
relationship to parents and their communities (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
However, there are many threats to adopting this model.
Threats to Co-Construction within the Educational Partnership
Much as there are limitations within organizational partnerships, there are
threats to the co-constructive process. Each stakeholder, including parents and
communities, can contribute to disrupting co-construction.
Teachers
According to Russell and Flynn (2002), teachers are not familiar with the
collaborative/dialogic process of co-construction, as it is not emphasized heavily
within the cultural model of schooling. Lieberman and Miller (1984) note that there
are two fundamental rules in school settings: be practical and be private. While the
practicality emphasizes the importance of strategies that are transferable into the
classroom, the emphasis on privacy results from the traditional cultural model of
teacher isolation. Lortie (1975) and Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) delve deeper
into this concept by describing the school’s culture as being similar to an egg carton
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 62 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 53 process of school reform. Furthermore, co-construction mandates that all stakeholders adopt a culture that discards hierarchal relationships and embraces everyone as peers. Within the realm of the community-school-university partnership, it is necessary for each stakeholder to participate in the co-construction process. However, the stakeholders involved in the partnership may present threat to the co-constructive process (Leiderman et al., 2002). This process of co-constructions requires schools and universities to adopt a new cultural model in their relationship to parents and their communities (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). However, there are many threats to adopting this model. Threats to Co-Construction within the Educational Partnership Much as there are limitations within organizational partnerships, there are threats to the co-constructive process. Each stakeholder, including parents and communities, can contribute to disrupting co-construction. Teachers According to Russell and Flynn (2002), teachers are not familiar with the collaborative/dialogic process of co-construction, as it is not emphasized heavily within the cultural model of schooling. Lieberman and Miller (1984) note that there are two fundamental rules in school settings: be practical and be private. While the practicality emphasizes the importance of strategies that are transferable into the classroom, the emphasis on privacy results from the traditional cultural model of teacher isolation. Lortie (1975) and Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) delve deeper into this concept by describing the school’s culture as being similar to an egg carton |
