Page 63 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 63 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
54
structure wherein inhabitants of each classroom are kept from interacting by the
structure of the environment in which they are placed. While modern movements
have attempted to chip away at this model, Lieberman and Miller (1984) explain that
hesitancy to collaborate is a safety mechanism: privacy maintains teacher autonomy
in the classroom and protects them from embarrassment if their work is not
successful. By maintaining this culture of isolation, teachers have the potential to
disrupt the process of co-construction that the partnership is attempting to create in
order to transform the culture of the school.
School Culture and Setting
Schein (1990) defines culture as:
(a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered or developed by a
given group (co-construction), (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough
to be considered valid and, therefore (e) is to be taught to new members as
the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems
(p. 111).
This is applicable within the school setting and the way in which the
organization interacts with its various stakeholders, specifically in regards to the
roles those stakeholders posses in the school setting.
According to Sarason (1971) the school’s culture is the very fabric of its
existence; it guides the institution’s principles, functioning and foundation. Thus, if
a school’s culture does not promote the co-constructive process, it limits the
possibility of co-construction occurring. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) and
Fullan (2000) expand on this notion by stating that the schools need to evaluate the
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 63 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 54 structure wherein inhabitants of each classroom are kept from interacting by the structure of the environment in which they are placed. While modern movements have attempted to chip away at this model, Lieberman and Miller (1984) explain that hesitancy to collaborate is a safety mechanism: privacy maintains teacher autonomy in the classroom and protects them from embarrassment if their work is not successful. By maintaining this culture of isolation, teachers have the potential to disrupt the process of co-construction that the partnership is attempting to create in order to transform the culture of the school. School Culture and Setting Schein (1990) defines culture as: (a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered or developed by a given group (co-construction), (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore (e) is to be taught to new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 111). This is applicable within the school setting and the way in which the organization interacts with its various stakeholders, specifically in regards to the roles those stakeholders posses in the school setting. According to Sarason (1971) the school’s culture is the very fabric of its existence; it guides the institution’s principles, functioning and foundation. Thus, if a school’s culture does not promote the co-constructive process, it limits the possibility of co-construction occurring. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) and Fullan (2000) expand on this notion by stating that the schools need to evaluate the |
