Page 122 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 122 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
113
Summary of Co-Construction Findings
The Year One research team documented that the partnership in Year One
was still trying to understand the process of co-construction, and that it was
emerging within the work of the partnership. Kim, a member of the Year One
research team, stated that although there was foundational knowledge regarding co-construction,
there were still gaps in its implementation throughout all aspects of the
partnership.
While the Year One research team found evidence that co-construction was an
emerging process within the partnership, the Year Two research team’s data suggest
that co-construction had regressed in terms of all network partners participating in
the process. Instead, the findings demonstrate that certain network partners, the
Grizzly United and Westside University, are attempting to maintain the process of
co-construction with Prep High School, its stakeholders and the community.
However, the network partners were not engaged in a process of co-construction
with one another. They had not moved to a stage of mutualism (Baum, 2002) in
which all partners worked together to co-construct a webbed network of resources
and relationships operating on behalf of school transformation. During Year Two,
City Connections continued to support the school with financial and technical
assistance, as well as safety, but did so in a less co-constructive manner. They were
operating in an altruistic relationship with the school. City Connections ultimately
reverted to old practices by identifying needs for the school and taking the steps
necessary to address those concerns. However, they did so with limited consultation
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 122 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 113 Summary of Co-Construction Findings The Year One research team documented that the partnership in Year One was still trying to understand the process of co-construction, and that it was emerging within the work of the partnership. Kim, a member of the Year One research team, stated that although there was foundational knowledge regarding co-construction, there were still gaps in its implementation throughout all aspects of the partnership. While the Year One research team found evidence that co-construction was an emerging process within the partnership, the Year Two research team’s data suggest that co-construction had regressed in terms of all network partners participating in the process. Instead, the findings demonstrate that certain network partners, the Grizzly United and Westside University, are attempting to maintain the process of co-construction with Prep High School, its stakeholders and the community. However, the network partners were not engaged in a process of co-construction with one another. They had not moved to a stage of mutualism (Baum, 2002) in which all partners worked together to co-construct a webbed network of resources and relationships operating on behalf of school transformation. During Year Two, City Connections continued to support the school with financial and technical assistance, as well as safety, but did so in a less co-constructive manner. They were operating in an altruistic relationship with the school. City Connections ultimately reverted to old practices by identifying needs for the school and taking the steps necessary to address those concerns. However, they did so with limited consultation |
