Page 144 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 144 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
135
As previously mentioned, the Year One research team discovered that the
partnership had created a transition team to act as a catalyst in addressing the
immediate needs of the school. Thus, the transition team had a specific role in the
partnership to ensure that certain needs for the school were being met in a timely
manner. It was the transition team’s responsibility to work with the network
partners, the principal and the Executive Director to determine the needs of the
school and to make sure that they were working collaboratively to meet the
partnership’s transition goals. This was also outlined in the Business Plan, which
explicitly states the following:
[A key feature of a reorganized Prep High School will include] strong
distributed leadership within the school. […] Overall, the UEAT will foster a
governance structure supported by a concept of distributed leadership and
mutual accountability. […] The school will create a model of distributed
leadership that includes the ability of each small learning community to
create its internal governance structure to carry out the school’s unified vision
and mission.
Thus, the partnership was moving in the direction of creating distributed
leadership and roles for within the school, but not within the partnership.
Based on an analysis of the artifacts, interviews and observations, UEAT has
not clearly identified the roles and responsibility of each of its network partners nor
has it created set goals for the organization. Furthermore, there are limited
opportunities for stakeholders to have leadership positions within the partnership,
specifically as members of adjunct teams. Although the aforementioned are major
factors that can contribute to stakeholder dissatisfaction and disengagement, the
partnership’s limited presence in the school community can also be a barrier in itself.
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 144 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 135 As previously mentioned, the Year One research team discovered that the partnership had created a transition team to act as a catalyst in addressing the immediate needs of the school. Thus, the transition team had a specific role in the partnership to ensure that certain needs for the school were being met in a timely manner. It was the transition team’s responsibility to work with the network partners, the principal and the Executive Director to determine the needs of the school and to make sure that they were working collaboratively to meet the partnership’s transition goals. This was also outlined in the Business Plan, which explicitly states the following: [A key feature of a reorganized Prep High School will include] strong distributed leadership within the school. […] Overall, the UEAT will foster a governance structure supported by a concept of distributed leadership and mutual accountability. […] The school will create a model of distributed leadership that includes the ability of each small learning community to create its internal governance structure to carry out the school’s unified vision and mission. Thus, the partnership was moving in the direction of creating distributed leadership and roles for within the school, but not within the partnership. Based on an analysis of the artifacts, interviews and observations, UEAT has not clearly identified the roles and responsibility of each of its network partners nor has it created set goals for the organization. Furthermore, there are limited opportunities for stakeholders to have leadership positions within the partnership, specifically as members of adjunct teams. Although the aforementioned are major factors that can contribute to stakeholder dissatisfaction and disengagement, the partnership’s limited presence in the school community can also be a barrier in itself. |
