Page 135 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 135 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
126
partnership, “which is why the partnership still functions as three separate
organizations.”
In conjunction with university stakeholders, members of the two community-based
organizations echoed the same sentiments regarding a lack of defined goals
and vision. Dr. Singh, of the Bradley Foundation, stated that UEAT had failed to
clearly identify its purpose and structure within the Prep community: “A whole lot
more can be done […] it is a function of us not understanding what our role is going
to legitimately be […]”. Mr. Ali, a former member of the City Connections who
worked with the partnership during its second year, made the following statement:
The partnership needs to explain their roles and responsibilities and their
parameters. […] Some people want the partnership to do everything and a lot
of people approach UEAT and the City Connections with a sugar daddy
mentality. […]There needs to be a clear understanding of the purpose of the
partnership and the parameters of the partnership. UEAT needs to continue
to steward that conversation (Mr. Ali, personal communication, 2010).
He further asserted that “there was no real awareness” of UEAT’s purpose,
role and strengths communicated to the school stakeholders, which attributed to a
distrustful relationship amongst the stakeholders (to be discussed later in the
chapter).
While the interviews overwhelmingly illustrated a need for UEAT to define
its goals, expectations and vision, the diction of the artifacts offer a perspective that
the partnership is clearer about its goals for the school than it is about the goals for
the partnership itself as a key element in helping the school achieve its goals.
According to the UEAT Business Plan (2008), the goal of the partnership is to:
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 135 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 126 partnership, “which is why the partnership still functions as three separate organizations.” In conjunction with university stakeholders, members of the two community-based organizations echoed the same sentiments regarding a lack of defined goals and vision. Dr. Singh, of the Bradley Foundation, stated that UEAT had failed to clearly identify its purpose and structure within the Prep community: “A whole lot more can be done […] it is a function of us not understanding what our role is going to legitimately be […]”. Mr. Ali, a former member of the City Connections who worked with the partnership during its second year, made the following statement: The partnership needs to explain their roles and responsibilities and their parameters. […] Some people want the partnership to do everything and a lot of people approach UEAT and the City Connections with a sugar daddy mentality. […]There needs to be a clear understanding of the purpose of the partnership and the parameters of the partnership. UEAT needs to continue to steward that conversation (Mr. Ali, personal communication, 2010). He further asserted that “there was no real awareness” of UEAT’s purpose, role and strengths communicated to the school stakeholders, which attributed to a distrustful relationship amongst the stakeholders (to be discussed later in the chapter). While the interviews overwhelmingly illustrated a need for UEAT to define its goals, expectations and vision, the diction of the artifacts offer a perspective that the partnership is clearer about its goals for the school than it is about the goals for the partnership itself as a key element in helping the school achieve its goals. According to the UEAT Business Plan (2008), the goal of the partnership is to: |
