Page 153 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 153 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
144
suspicion, and skepticism. Mr. Ali noted that the lack of trust dynamic was clearly
evident within the partnership’s second year of operation: “[Teachers] don’t trust the
partnership. I think politics is involved in it. You have some teachers that are with
the unions. They’re very vocal because they have those issues.” However, he
mostly attributes the lack of trust to a lack of understanding of the partnership and its
purpose. This assertion aligns closely with the research team observations of the
barriers coded under the lack of trust code. The research team noted a significant
theme emerged regarding motives.
Motives
The most commonly cited example of a lack of trust was related to personal
motives. Some school faculty, classified staff, and parents felt that the partners did
not place the students and the students’ agendas in the forefront. Ms. Shepard was
forthright regarding her concerns with the City Connections and their motive for
participation in the partnership:
We want the City Connections to just tell us what [they’re] doing for the
school. Our biggest downfall here has been honesty. We don’t trust these
people and they don't give us any reason to trust them. And when you don’t
have trust in anything, it’s bound to fail […] I see people, once again, with
their own personal agenda (Ms. Shepard, personal communication, 2010).
Ms. Shepard’s comments illustrate: (1) a history of the school being abused
by outside organizations; (2) a reluctance to trust UEAT to help Prep students reach
its maximum potential; and (3) a persistent bend towards distrust among some
parents that has not been bridged.
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 153 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 144 suspicion, and skepticism. Mr. Ali noted that the lack of trust dynamic was clearly evident within the partnership’s second year of operation: “[Teachers] don’t trust the partnership. I think politics is involved in it. You have some teachers that are with the unions. They’re very vocal because they have those issues.” However, he mostly attributes the lack of trust to a lack of understanding of the partnership and its purpose. This assertion aligns closely with the research team observations of the barriers coded under the lack of trust code. The research team noted a significant theme emerged regarding motives. Motives The most commonly cited example of a lack of trust was related to personal motives. Some school faculty, classified staff, and parents felt that the partners did not place the students and the students’ agendas in the forefront. Ms. Shepard was forthright regarding her concerns with the City Connections and their motive for participation in the partnership: We want the City Connections to just tell us what [they’re] doing for the school. Our biggest downfall here has been honesty. We don’t trust these people and they don't give us any reason to trust them. And when you don’t have trust in anything, it’s bound to fail […] I see people, once again, with their own personal agenda (Ms. Shepard, personal communication, 2010). Ms. Shepard’s comments illustrate: (1) a history of the school being abused by outside organizations; (2) a reluctance to trust UEAT to help Prep students reach its maximum potential; and (3) a persistent bend towards distrust among some parents that has not been bridged. |
