Page 118 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 118 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
109
were mostly originated and implement by the City Connections, not in consultation
with a spectrum of stakeholders in the school. Most conversations were between the
principal and a representative from the City Connections.
A university representative noted that, not only were the occasions and
structures for co-construction with the school diminished in Year Two, but also
network partners were not being co-constructive with one another in Year Two as
they had during Year One. The university representative attributes this loss of focus
on co-construction to the lack of focus on co-construction from the principal and the
Year Two Interim Executive Director. The process lacked leadership:
The principal and the Interim Executive Director ignored much of the work
that had been done in Year One; thus the City Connections followed their
lead or sought to fill the vacuum by just working with the principal to
determine school needs. Also, it is fair to say that the Bradley Foundation
and Westside University also functioned in less of a co-constructive mode in
Year Two because the leadership to facilitate this process was missing. Co-construction
has to be deliberate, operating under a philosophical framework
(University Representative, personal communication, 2011).
The university representative stated that some network partners demonstrated
more co-constructive practices than others when interacting with the school.
However, all network partners moved away from the practice of co-construction
with one another. This limited presence of a co-constructive process in Year Two
will be further elucidated in the discussion of the Year Two research group’s
findings regarding barriers to co-construction.
Out of the 29 interviews conducted, only six interviews stated that the
process of co-construction had occurred during the second year of the partnership.
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 118 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 109 were mostly originated and implement by the City Connections, not in consultation with a spectrum of stakeholders in the school. Most conversations were between the principal and a representative from the City Connections. A university representative noted that, not only were the occasions and structures for co-construction with the school diminished in Year Two, but also network partners were not being co-constructive with one another in Year Two as they had during Year One. The university representative attributes this loss of focus on co-construction to the lack of focus on co-construction from the principal and the Year Two Interim Executive Director. The process lacked leadership: The principal and the Interim Executive Director ignored much of the work that had been done in Year One; thus the City Connections followed their lead or sought to fill the vacuum by just working with the principal to determine school needs. Also, it is fair to say that the Bradley Foundation and Westside University also functioned in less of a co-constructive mode in Year Two because the leadership to facilitate this process was missing. Co-construction has to be deliberate, operating under a philosophical framework (University Representative, personal communication, 2011). The university representative stated that some network partners demonstrated more co-constructive practices than others when interacting with the school. However, all network partners moved away from the practice of co-construction with one another. This limited presence of a co-constructive process in Year Two will be further elucidated in the discussion of the Year Two research group’s findings regarding barriers to co-construction. Out of the 29 interviews conducted, only six interviews stated that the process of co-construction had occurred during the second year of the partnership. |
