Page 124 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 124 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
115
conjunction with co-construction, the Year Two research team evaluated dialogue as
an ongoing process within the community-school-university partnership. The
interviews, artifacts and observations offered the Year Two research team an
opportunity to analyze the extent to which the partnership was demonstrating the
process of dialogue within the second and third year of the partnership.
Year One and Year Two Dialogue Findings
The UEAT Business Plan (2008) states that the partnership will promote
“structured and informal engagement between the school, parents and the
community” that will require ongoing dialogue to take place between school
stakeholders, parents and community members. In Year Two, the Strategic Plan
(2010) outlines the need for school stakeholders to be involved in a dialogue with
one another in order to improve student academic achievement. For example, it
states that teachers, in each SLC, will collaborate with one another to discuss the
needs of their students and possible interventions. Furthermore, it states that
teachers “will convene workshops to advise parents and students of the planned
programmatic, curricular and instructional strategies for improving the proficiency
levels of all students in their SLC” (Strategic Plan, 2010). Both the Business Plan
and the Strategic Plan mention the need for teachers to engage in a process of
dialogue with one another in order to determine the best interventions and
instructional practices for students to advance; furthermore, both documents
illuminate the need for these strategies to be shared with parents and community
members. Thus, it is evident that the Year One and Year Two documents considered
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 124 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 115 conjunction with co-construction, the Year Two research team evaluated dialogue as an ongoing process within the community-school-university partnership. The interviews, artifacts and observations offered the Year Two research team an opportunity to analyze the extent to which the partnership was demonstrating the process of dialogue within the second and third year of the partnership. Year One and Year Two Dialogue Findings The UEAT Business Plan (2008) states that the partnership will promote “structured and informal engagement between the school, parents and the community” that will require ongoing dialogue to take place between school stakeholders, parents and community members. In Year Two, the Strategic Plan (2010) outlines the need for school stakeholders to be involved in a dialogue with one another in order to improve student academic achievement. For example, it states that teachers, in each SLC, will collaborate with one another to discuss the needs of their students and possible interventions. Furthermore, it states that teachers “will convene workshops to advise parents and students of the planned programmatic, curricular and instructional strategies for improving the proficiency levels of all students in their SLC” (Strategic Plan, 2010). Both the Business Plan and the Strategic Plan mention the need for teachers to engage in a process of dialogue with one another in order to determine the best interventions and instructional practices for students to advance; furthermore, both documents illuminate the need for these strategies to be shared with parents and community members. Thus, it is evident that the Year One and Year Two documents considered |
