Page 149 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 149 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
140
communication during the second year of the partnership. Many members
mentioned knocking on teachers’ doors, knocking on doors in the community,
calling parents, and producing Public Service Announcements in order to
communicate more efficiently and effectively about meetings and activities of the
partnership. Stakeholders also stated that there was no centralized location to check
upcoming events or meeting dates and no systematic way to disseminate
information. Dr. Grupe identifies this as an area of improvement for the partnership;
he notes that in order to keep stakeholders actively involved in the partnership, “they
can’t just be passive recipients of information.” He recognizes the fact that UEAT
has not explored innovative methods of communicating with stakeholders: “The best
technology of the day ought to be used to leverage this conversation in a broader
community.”
Dr. Grupe’s observation about UEAT’s communication efforts coincides with
the research team’s analysis of UEAT Board meeting observations during the third
year. During these meetings, stakeholders repeatedly asked where they could obtain
copies of documents being handed out in meetings, as there were often not enough
copies of documents for the participants in attendance. This information suggests
that there was a lapse in written communication with stakeholders; audience
members were limited in their access to written information during the meetings and
thus did not receive adequate information about the work of the partnership that was
discussed during Board meetings. Thus, there continued to be a gap in
communication between the partnership and the school stakeholders. However,
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 149 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 140 communication during the second year of the partnership. Many members mentioned knocking on teachers’ doors, knocking on doors in the community, calling parents, and producing Public Service Announcements in order to communicate more efficiently and effectively about meetings and activities of the partnership. Stakeholders also stated that there was no centralized location to check upcoming events or meeting dates and no systematic way to disseminate information. Dr. Grupe identifies this as an area of improvement for the partnership; he notes that in order to keep stakeholders actively involved in the partnership, “they can’t just be passive recipients of information.” He recognizes the fact that UEAT has not explored innovative methods of communicating with stakeholders: “The best technology of the day ought to be used to leverage this conversation in a broader community.” Dr. Grupe’s observation about UEAT’s communication efforts coincides with the research team’s analysis of UEAT Board meeting observations during the third year. During these meetings, stakeholders repeatedly asked where they could obtain copies of documents being handed out in meetings, as there were often not enough copies of documents for the participants in attendance. This information suggests that there was a lapse in written communication with stakeholders; audience members were limited in their access to written information during the meetings and thus did not receive adequate information about the work of the partnership that was discussed during Board meetings. Thus, there continued to be a gap in communication between the partnership and the school stakeholders. However, |
