Page 162 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 162 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
153
student participation that stemmed from a deficiency of disseminated information
about the partnership to the larger student body and the community. The Year Two
research team felt that the data illustrate that the systems of representation have
regressed. Although there is now a stronger voice for Latino parents, there still is a
limited inclusion of representatives from the larger stakeholder groups. Also, many
of the systems of representation put in place during the first year have ceased to exist
within the second and third year of operation, such as the Transition Team and Small
Learning Community Council.
Critical Bridge Person Findings
In addition to systems of representation, the use of critical bridge person was
a strong strategy used during Year One. According to the literature, the critical
bridge person can serve an important role in fostering dialogue as one who is
familiar with the culture and context of each partner (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988;
Stevens, 1999; Kezar, 2007; Ostrander, 2004). The interviews, artifacts and
observations offered the research team an opportunity to analyze the extent to which
the partnership was continuing the use of a critical bridge person as a strategy to
overcome barriers to co-construction within the partnership. During the data
collection process, the research team had two notable observations of the use of a
critical bridge person, one of which was during a UEAT Meeting on December 13,
2010, in which Dr. Key helped facilitate a dialogue between the different stakeholder
groups present at the meeting. During the meeting, Dr. Key was defending Prep and
its articulation progress in a manner that was well received by the UEAT Board,
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 162 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 153 student participation that stemmed from a deficiency of disseminated information about the partnership to the larger student body and the community. The Year Two research team felt that the data illustrate that the systems of representation have regressed. Although there is now a stronger voice for Latino parents, there still is a limited inclusion of representatives from the larger stakeholder groups. Also, many of the systems of representation put in place during the first year have ceased to exist within the second and third year of operation, such as the Transition Team and Small Learning Community Council. Critical Bridge Person Findings In addition to systems of representation, the use of critical bridge person was a strong strategy used during Year One. According to the literature, the critical bridge person can serve an important role in fostering dialogue as one who is familiar with the culture and context of each partner (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Stevens, 1999; Kezar, 2007; Ostrander, 2004). The interviews, artifacts and observations offered the research team an opportunity to analyze the extent to which the partnership was continuing the use of a critical bridge person as a strategy to overcome barriers to co-construction within the partnership. During the data collection process, the research team had two notable observations of the use of a critical bridge person, one of which was during a UEAT Meeting on December 13, 2010, in which Dr. Key helped facilitate a dialogue between the different stakeholder groups present at the meeting. During the meeting, Dr. Key was defending Prep and its articulation progress in a manner that was well received by the UEAT Board, |
