Page 154 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 154 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
145
Dr. Truman, a university participant, also agreed with this feeling and stated
“the students always came third and fourth and fifth.” She was involved in the
partnership during the first year of operation and noticed that stakeholders were very
cynical about why they felt the partners chose to be a part of the partnership. She
suggested that parents and community members felt as though certain network
partners, specifically the City Connections, were going to use the partnership as an
opportunity to push their own organization’s initiatives. Ms. Shepard asserted that
the partners were not necessarily looking at the partnership from the educational
standpoint but instead to create “a model of schools across the nation.” These
statements were supported by Leblue’s comments regarding the City Connections’
push to position themselves as a powerful entity in educational partnerships. Truman
also verified this point, stating that some members of Westside University and the
City Connections were not necessarily there to build alliances to impact the
empowerment of the students, but to build “alliances between organizations for
personal benefit.”
Interestingly, the Bradley Foundation was never mentioned as having ulterior
or negative motives, which aligns with a statement from the Business Plan (2008)
that characterizes the network partner as having “a relationship of trust within the
school and community that is helping stakeholders unify around educating the
community’s youth.”
As evidenced by the data collected from interviews, the City Connections
was questioned the most frequently about their motives for joining and participating
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 154 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 145 Dr. Truman, a university participant, also agreed with this feeling and stated “the students always came third and fourth and fifth.” She was involved in the partnership during the first year of operation and noticed that stakeholders were very cynical about why they felt the partners chose to be a part of the partnership. She suggested that parents and community members felt as though certain network partners, specifically the City Connections, were going to use the partnership as an opportunity to push their own organization’s initiatives. Ms. Shepard asserted that the partners were not necessarily looking at the partnership from the educational standpoint but instead to create “a model of schools across the nation.” These statements were supported by Leblue’s comments regarding the City Connections’ push to position themselves as a powerful entity in educational partnerships. Truman also verified this point, stating that some members of Westside University and the City Connections were not necessarily there to build alliances to impact the empowerment of the students, but to build “alliances between organizations for personal benefit.” Interestingly, the Bradley Foundation was never mentioned as having ulterior or negative motives, which aligns with a statement from the Business Plan (2008) that characterizes the network partner as having “a relationship of trust within the school and community that is helping stakeholders unify around educating the community’s youth.” As evidenced by the data collected from interviews, the City Connections was questioned the most frequently about their motives for joining and participating |
