Page 120 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 120 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
111
Administrators noted that in order to create a rubric at the department level and grade
level, there would need to be “input on the crucial things” (Administrative
Professional Development Observation, 2010) assessed within the classroom.
Meeting participants brainstormed possible methods for soliciting teacher feedback
and ideas to identify these “crucial things.” They also identified key teachers who
would be instrumental in moving the process forward. Thus, while teachers were not
directly involved in the administrative meeting, the administrative team recognized a
need for them to be involved and made plans to involve teachers in the process of
creating common rubrics and assessments. Ultimately, the meeting demonstrated the
network partners working together in a co-constructive manner in the interest of
improving the school. To some degree, this was a process taking place between one
network partner and the school; however, the presence and participation of the
UEAT Executive Director indicated that she was attempting to make meaning of this
process on behalf of the partnership.
Dr. Key asserts that the work surrounding the Ford Grant also serves as
evidence of the network partners returning to co-constructive practices in Year
Three. According to her interview, each network partner was key in writing the final
sections of the grant during the 2010-2011 Winter Break:
I was in Austin writing about teachers and students, while Alex was in Los
Angeles writing about parents. When we finished our drafts, we critiqued
one another’s work. Then we sent drafts to Ms. Carriage, the UEAT
Executive Director; Dr. Singh with the Bradley Foundation and Ms. Bryant,
the principal, to receive their input. It was a co-constructive process (Dr.
Key, personal communication, 2011).
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 120 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 111 Administrators noted that in order to create a rubric at the department level and grade level, there would need to be “input on the crucial things” (Administrative Professional Development Observation, 2010) assessed within the classroom. Meeting participants brainstormed possible methods for soliciting teacher feedback and ideas to identify these “crucial things.” They also identified key teachers who would be instrumental in moving the process forward. Thus, while teachers were not directly involved in the administrative meeting, the administrative team recognized a need for them to be involved and made plans to involve teachers in the process of creating common rubrics and assessments. Ultimately, the meeting demonstrated the network partners working together in a co-constructive manner in the interest of improving the school. To some degree, this was a process taking place between one network partner and the school; however, the presence and participation of the UEAT Executive Director indicated that she was attempting to make meaning of this process on behalf of the partnership. Dr. Key asserts that the work surrounding the Ford Grant also serves as evidence of the network partners returning to co-constructive practices in Year Three. According to her interview, each network partner was key in writing the final sections of the grant during the 2010-2011 Winter Break: I was in Austin writing about teachers and students, while Alex was in Los Angeles writing about parents. When we finished our drafts, we critiqued one another’s work. Then we sent drafts to Ms. Carriage, the UEAT Executive Director; Dr. Singh with the Bradley Foundation and Ms. Bryant, the principal, to receive their input. It was a co-constructive process (Dr. Key, personal communication, 2011). |
